DATE OF FILING                    :     08/01/2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      06/03/2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     27/08/2014.

SUJIT NASKAR

Ichapur Canal Side, Purba Para P.O. Santragachi,

near Radhagobindo School, P.S. Dasnagar,

Howrah 711 104, ------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      The Manager,

Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd,

Sundar Para Road, P.O. Santragachi

Howrah 711 112

2.      The Manager,

IFB Appliances,

14,Taratala Road,

Kolkata, 700 088 -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                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.                  Complainant, Sujit Naskar,   by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986

( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to replace the washing machine  in question alternatively to refund  the purchase price along with Rs. 60,000/- as compensation and Rs. 7,000/- as litigation costs together with other reliefs as the Forum may  deem fit and proper. 

2.               Brief fact of the case is that complainant purchased one washing machine on payment of  Rs. 22,000/- on 29-10-2013 vide Tax  Cash Memo no. SG/CM/03233/13-14 dated 29-10-2013 from O.P. no. 1 duly manufactured by O.P. no. 2. Complainant received the same on 01-11-2013 and the packing was opened on 04-11-2013 in presence of  one representative of o.p. no. 2 namely Mr. Subhash Mishra of o.p. no. 2 who came for demonstration. But it is alleged by the complaiantn that after opening the carton, some scratches and denting damages were found on the product in question.  So the complainant refused to accept the product. The said Mr. Mishra immediately assured him that the product will be replaced and informed O.P. no. 1 to take necessary action in front of the complainant. But it is very unfortunate that even after making several requests and personal visits by the complainant to both the o.ps., the problem was not cured.  The machine is lying idle without being used by the wife of the complainant who is allegedly sick and requires the very service of the machine in every step in managing her household job. Lastly on 11-12-2013 complainant wrote a letter to O.P. no. 1 vide Annexure which was refused by o.p. no. 1 and returned to the complainant on 01-01-2014. Being frustrated and finding no other alternatives the complainant has filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayers.

3.               Notice was served upon o.p. no. 2. The o.p. no. 2 appeared and filed  written version but s/r of o.p. no. 1 remained unserved. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.    Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.  We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. no. 2 and noted its contents. After putting the preliminary objection, the o.p. no. 2 has stated that they are ready and willing to replace the machine in question with a machine of upgraded model being ELINA AQUA VX having MRP of Rs. 25,490/- and it was told to the complainant on 04-11-2013 by the representative of o.p. no. 2. Since some official procedures are required to be maintained , the replacement of the machine was delayed which was really beyond control. It is also stated by the o.p. no. 2 the scratch marks and denting damages cannot cause any financial loss to the complainant. Here we take a pause. Does it not create mental agony  as well as suffering for a person who pays such an amount of Rs. 22,000/- for a household gadget in cash which is lying idle without being used? We all know washing machine is a very very essential commodity in modern day to day life. Complainant, even after making the full payment, has not received any material service out of that machine. The defect  was informed to o.p. no.1 immediately on 04-11-2013 by the representative of o.p. no. 2, still none of them redressed the complaint of the complainant which compelled the complainant to file this instant case on 08-01-2014. Although the o.p. no. 2 is ready to replace the machine, the complainant has no faith upon o.ps. And he has pressed upon the refund of money during course of argument. O.Ps. did not bother to redress the problem of the complainant till the filing of the case. Mere verbal assurance does not provide any real relief. Accordingly, O.Ps. are found to be deficient in providing service to the complainant.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  7 of 2014 ( HDF 7 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest    with  costs  against  the O.P. no. 2 and dismissed against O.P. no. 1.  

      That the  O.P. no. 2 is  directed to pay Rs. 22,000/-  to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

       That O.P. no. 2 is further  directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigations costs to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., the entire decreetal amount of  Rs. 25,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.

      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.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.