IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/90/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
19.07.2019 05.08.2019 20.09.2022
Complainant: Sk. Sher Ali,
S/O- Semaruddin Biswas,
Residing at- Sherpur,
P.O.- Nimtita,
Dist- Murshidabad, W.B.
Pin-742224.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.The Manager,
Hearing Care ,
Berhampore Speech & Hearing Clinic.
40 R.N. Tagore Road,
P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad, W.B.
Pin-742101.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Ayan Chowdhury.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : N.O.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, MEMBER
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Sk. Sher Ali (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Manager Hearing Care (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant for his hearing problem visited the O.P.’s clinic on 28/07/2018 for making audio logical evolution report and after seven days to solve the problem of hearing the complainant purchased hearing aid from the O.P. But after few months the complainant realized that the said hearing aid was not working properly so the complainant went to the O.P. on 05.08.2018 for the replacement of the same and the O.P. replaced the same and issued a fresh bill after deposition of the previous bill. Again after a few months the complainant found that hearing aid was defective one and for the replacement the complainant again went to the Office of the O.P. but he refused to replace the same and asked the complainant to pay Rs. 1000/- for repair and the complainant paid Rs. 1000/- but the receipt of the same has been misplaced. Thereafter, in the month of April, 2019 the said machine was again found to be defective and as the complainant demanded to replace the same but the O.P. asked to pay Rs. 20000/- for the replacement. The complainant also stated that he went to the Office of the O.P. for repair of the said machine within the one year of warranty period so the O.P. has no right to claim any amount as per the terms and conditions of the invoice issued by the O.P. dated 05.08.2018. Complainant on several occasions requested the O.P. for proper relief but O.P. failed to do so.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
After due service of the notice the O.P. did not appear to controvert the plea of the complainant for the reason best known to him. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
As per petition of the complaint the complainant went to the clinic of the O.P. on 28.07.2017 for making audio logical evolution report which suggested the complainant to take hearing aid and after seven days the complainant purchased the hearing aid from the O.P. and after a few months when the hearing aid stopped proper working the complainant visited the clinic of the O.P. for replacement of the same on 05.08.2018. The O.P. replaced the same and issued a bill on 05.08.2018 after deposition of the previous bill. But after a few months when the complainant found this hearing aid was also defective one he again went to the clinic of the O.P. for replacement of the same and the O.P. demanded Rs. 1000/- as repairing cost and the complainant paid the same but the receipt has been lost from the custody of the complainant. Thereafter, in the month of April, 2019 the said hearing aid again found non-functioning and the complainant visited the clinic of the O.P. to replace the same but O.P. asked Rs. 20000/- for replacement.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us we found that the O.P. sold the hearing aid to the complainant by issuing a receipt on 05.08.2018 where it has been mentioned that the said machine was under warranty of one year. But as per petition of complaint the complainant went to the clinic of the O.P. on 05.08.2018 for replacement of the said hearing aid which the complainant has purchased from the O.P. after 7 days from his audio logical evolution report which was done on 28.07.2017. No documents have been filed by the complainant regarding the payment of repairing cost of Rs. 1000/- for his hearing aid. So, the facts stated by the complainant does not tally with the documents filed by the complainant. Such being the position the complainant has failed to prove his case and as such we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 19.07.2019 and admitted on 05.08.2019. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is dismissed.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/90/2019 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. but without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
