West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/51/2017

Subrata Mukherjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, KENSTAR - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

    Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member. 

and 

Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.51/2017

 

                              Sri Subrata Mukherjee of Taljuli ( behind taljuli Sporting Club),

                                    Ward No. 28, Kharagpur 721301, Paschim Medinipur.  

                                                                                             ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Branch Manager, KENSTAR 83, Linton Street, CIT Road, WB (Linton Street P.O.), Kolkata-700074
2.  Manager, M/s-Dew Point Appliances, Malancha Road, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
3. Joy Electrical & Electronics Prop: Pallab Chakraborty, Jhapatapur, Kharagpur-721301, Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                            .....……….….Opp. Parties.                                                     

              For the Complainant: Self

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Dipankar Pati, Advocate.

                                                          

                                                          Date of filling:-  20/03/2017

Decided on: -    15/03/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Pulak Kumar Singha , Member –In short the case of the complainant is that on 05.04.2016 complainant purchased one dry iron from Op. No. 3 and on 09.04.2016 while complainant used the said iron over the cloth then two cloths were damaged due to excessive hit of dry iron.  Complainant lodged complain on 10.04.2016 to the op n. 3 in respect of detect of dry iron set then Op. repaired  the same and returned to the                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                        Contd……………P/2

 

( 2 )

complainant.  On 16.04.2016 while complainant used the said dry iron faced the same problem and informed to the Ops. Retail shop, service centre, manufacturing unit and also the customer Care Centre.  Ultimately on 16.07.2016 one technician of Op.no.2, visited complainants house and after perusal of all purchased documents along with warranty card and taken back the iron set with an assurance to return back  after necessary repair but till date the said iron set did not return by the Op. no. 2, though complainant regularly knocking the doors of all Ops. But they did not pay heed to the claim of complainant.  As such the complainant sustained mental pain , sufferings and also monetary loss and for which complainant approached before this Forum for getting relief as per prayer of his claim.

                   Op. nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filling W/V denying the allegations against them stating inter alia that op. nos. 1 and 2 are the service provider, which provides service in respect of the electronic products like Refrigerator, Washing machine etc. Warranty period of the Dry iron in question was for one year in respect of all parts, except corrosion, plastic and glass components from the date of purchase. Warranty shall not cover any consequential or resulting liability, damage of loss to property. This op. has no deficiency in service and as such op. nos. 1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the case.

                   Inspite of service of summon upon Op. no.3, none appeared and contested the case, hence the case is heard ex-parte against op. no.3.

Decision with Reasons

                 Fact of the case that complainant purchased one Dry iron set from Op. no.3 on 05/04/2016 and on 09/04/2016 while the complainant used for iron over his cloths by the said Dry iron his cloths were damaged due to excessive hit. Complainant lodged complaint to op. no.3 and other Ops. Thereafter op. no.2 provided service and after repaired return back the said Dry iron set. After few days on 16/04/2016 while the complainant again try to use the said Dry iron set then same problem has started i.e. Dry iron set was hitted excessively than required hit. Complainant again lodged complaint with the ops. Even their Customer Case Centre also, ultimately on 16/07/2016 one technician of op. no.2 came to the house of complainant and verified all the purchased documents including warranty card and taken back the Dry iron set with the assurance they will return back the same after due repair but till date the said iron set has not returned back to the complainant through the complainant repeatedly knocking the doors of Ops.

                    Complainant to prove his case adduced evidence and tendered himself as PW-1 and he has stated in his cross examination of op. no.1 that Kenstar Dry iron is the manufacturer.  

                                                                                                                                                        Contd……………P/3

 

( 3 )

                    Op. no.1 also adduce evidence and tendered witness as OPW-1 who admits in his cross-examination that disputed Dry iron set is still lying in their custody and complainant deposited the said iron set within warranty period. He admits that he has no knowledge whether manufacturing company or service centre informed the complainant that due to fluctuation of electricity in his house the said iron set was damaged. Op. nos. 1 and 2 who are the manufacturer and authorized service centre. Op. no.3 is seller of Op. nos. 1 and 2 and said O.Ps. have taken plea that due to fluctuation of electricity of the house of complainant the said iron set was damaged but such statement is not proved by any cogent evidence by the O.P. no1and 2. It reveals from the warranty card attached with the owner’s manual that for warrants to the purchase or this product that for a period or 12 (twelve) months convening from the date of purchase. From the documents and evidences it appears that Op. no 2 did not intimate the complainant that defect is not under the warranty period or return back the disputed Dry iron set. Under such circumstances we find that op. no.1 and 2 both are deficient in rendering service to their customer for which the complainant has been suffering mental pain, harassment and sustained monetory loss.

                        In view of the discussions here above we think that complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

                       Thus complaint case succeeds.

                                          Hence, it is,

                                                             Ordered 

                                                            that the case be and the same is allowed on contest against Op. no.1 and 2 and ex-parte against Op. no.3.

                  Op. nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly or severally Rs.550/- (purchase price) to pay Rs.1,500/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and to pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

                  Failure to comply the order Op. nos. 1 and 2 shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as penal cost to the account of Legal fund of this Forum.   

 

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                         Sd/-P.K. Singha                                Sd/- S. Sarkar                          Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                               Member                                          Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur