In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 162 / 2008 1) Smt. Suchandra Bose, 10B, Mohamaya Lane, Kolkata-26. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) The Manager, M/s. Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 11, Deshpran Shasmal Road, Kolkata. 2) The Branch Manager, M/s. Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Shed No. D & H, C.I.S.F., Compound, Remount Road, Kantapukur, Kolkata-23. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 1 4 Dated 0 8 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9 . The instant case arises out of the complaint u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 of Ms. Suchandra Bose of 10B, Mohamaya Lane, Kolkata-26, P.S. Kalighat against (1) Manager, M/s. Raipur Electronics now renamed as M/s. Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. of 11, Deshpran Shasmal Road, P.S. Charu Market, (2) The Branch Manager, M/s. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd., Shed No. D & H, C.I.S.F., Compound, Remount Road, Kantapukur, Kolkata-23, South Police Station and (3) Manager, Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd., 3rd floor, Global Business Park, Mehrauli, Gurgaon, Hariyana-122002 with a prayer to (i) issue notice upon the o.ps., (ii) refund the money to the tune of Rs.12,500/- being the cost of the refrigerator, (iii) pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and (iv) pass further order /orders as the Forum deems fit and proper. Specific case is that the complainant purchased a refrigerator having model 245 Premium, brand Electrolux from the o.p. no.1 on 15.10.04 on cash payment of Rs.12,500/- only (annex-P-1 of the petition of complaint). That the o.p. no.1 deals in selling domestic electrical appliances and is trader of o.p. nos.3 and 4 and o.p. nos.3 and 4 are the manufacturer and service providers. Within a few months after the purchase of the refrigerator in January, 2005 the refrigerator started malfunctioning. The complainant through her father made several complaints to o.p. no.1 verbally and also over phone. O.p. no.1 all the while assured the complainant that they would get the repairing of defects on behalf of o.p. nos.2 and 3. On several occasions, inspectors were sent to the complainant’s home. The inspectors inspected the defects and assured that the defects would be repaired very soon. The said complaint no. and date are given hereunder – 11578 dt.22.8.2005 17436 dt.08.9.2005 18106 dt.09.5.2006 18584 dt.27.5.2006 26613 dt.19.3.2007 Though the defects were detected within the warranty period, the o.ps. failed to repair/replace the said defective parts of the same. The o.p’s assurance of the above service is expressly stated in the manual provided during the purchase of the refrigerator (annex-2). Several representations were made to the o.ps. by the complainant through her father. A legal notice dt.12.7.07 was also sent to the o.ps. (annex-)-3). In spite of assurance of the o.ps., the o.ps. have failed to provide proper service and resorted to unfair trade practice by selling a defective refrigerator to the complainant and not complying with their assurance of replacement/free service during the warranty period. Though the o.ps. all the while assured the complainant of appropriate service to the recorded series of complaints, the complainant was under the impression that the o.ps. would do the necessary repair works. But the same were not done. Hence, the instant case has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986. Decision with reasons :- Perused the pleadings, affidavit of evidence of the complainant and of o.ps., BNAs of both sides and documents on record. It is evident from the perusal of the above that all the o.ps. were responsible for not rectifying the defects of the refrigerator, though complaint was made within warranty period. In spite of assurances of the o.p. no.1 who stated that they would do the servicing as there was no provision directly to provide repairing service from Electrolux Company which could only be done through o.p. no.1. But in spite of the visits of Inspectors from the o.p. to the complainant’s house and their assurance to mend the defects, the same was not repaired, though the above assurance was expressly stated in the manual provided during the purchase of refrigerator (annex-P-2). Since there was no response from the o.ps., a legal notice dt.12.7.07 of Ld. Advocate Dibyendu Motilal was sent (annex-P-3) but without- any response. The failure of o.ps. to respond to the advocates notice indicates that they had nothing to controvert against the allegation made by the complainant and establishing the fact that the said refrigerator is defective. In view of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant succeeds the case. Hence, ordered, that o.p. is directed jointly and and /or severally (i) to refund Rs.12,500/- (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred) only paid for the purchase of the said refrigerator on getting the said defective refrigerator back from the complainant, (ii) to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for causing mental agony and harassment and (iii) litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the above amounts will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery. Fees paid are correct. The case is thus disposed of from this Forum. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_______ _____Sd-_______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
