DATE OF FILING : 17-09-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 30-10-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 02-04-2014.
Sanjiv Kumar Singh,
son of Sri Chandra Dev Singh,
residing at 6, Upendra Nath Roy Lane,
Howrah – 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
The Manager,
Bazar Kolkata,
52, Chintamany Dey road,
Howrah – 711 101.------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. to exchange the defective articles, to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and for Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs as the o.p. did not exchange the defective items ultimately and charged Rs. 30/- for 2nd/3rd time exchange.
2. The o.p. in the written version contended interalia that the story of the complainant is after thought, motivated and false; that the attempt of the complainant is to defame the goodwill of the o.p. So the complaint should be dismissed.
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. This is a case where the o.p. sold defective goods knowing fully well the defective characters. On 06-09-2013 the complainant purchased six articles from the o.p. and subsequently found item nos. 2 to 6 were defective; visited the shop and returned the defective articles. He had to purchase other five items. Unfortunately, from the new purchase the complainant again found two items defective viz. item nos. 3 and 5. Once again the complainant went to the o.p. shop to return those defective items. Now the o.p. demanded Rs. 30/- extra though he had valid cash memo. Being shocked with the misbehavior of the o.p. the complainant lodged G.D. being no. 917 dated 09-09-2013 with the Howrah P.S.
5. Whatever be the laborious argument of the o.p., it is palpable that the o.p. deliberately sold defective goods to the complainant customer twice in quick succession. What better instance of unfair trade practice can be that the case at hand. Even the complainant was thoroughly misbehaved by the o.p. and his men. It is beyond any body’s guess how the o.p. could show a cold shoulder to a bonafide consumer when the reverse of the cash memo carries the stipulation – No exchange of discounted items unless they are defective and only with valid cash memo.
6. We fully appreciate the stand of the complainant who has the courage to protest, no matter if the amount is negligible.
We are, therefore, of the view that the o.p. is guilty of adopting unfair trade practice. It is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 324 of 2013 ( HDF 324 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs as against the O.P.
The O.P. be directed to deliver items in exchange of the defective ones ( two items ) or to refund the money of the same within 30 days from the date of this order
The o.p. do further pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment and litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order, failing the same ( Rs. 25,000/- ) shall carry interest @ Rs. 10/- p.a. till full satisfaction.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
