Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant has purchased a water filter at the respondent’s concern named Eureka Forbes and that the complainant on 28.05.2021 has done AMC (ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT) through his register mobile no. that is 9434124480 for the above said water filter, that the customer ID of the complainant is 1010398390. The complainant states that it is now more than 7months but the complainant did not get any service till now, that the complainant has contracted the department several times but did get any positive response from the respondent’s end and that the complainant has paid Rs.2650/- for the service to the respondent’s department which is valid up to 27.05.2022. The complainant states that for the respondent’s careless and unprofessional attitude the complainant is being mentally harassed these days and that the respondent’s end was intentionally dodging the liability towards the complainant which is subject to legal actions that there is prima facie case of intentional harassment. The complainant states that the said complainant approached the respondent’s concern for proper response and explanation but the respondent’s reply was most unfortunate and the respondent concern tried to bypass the respondent’s liability, the respondent concern are delaying intentionally and have denied to cooperate, the respondent’s response in this regard is most irresponsible, reluctant and callous in manner, for the respondent’s gross negligence the said complainant had to suffer from monetary loss and mental harassments that there was no attempt from the respondent’s side to provide client satisfaction to the said complainant whatsoever and the said complainant had faced a lot of harassment from the respondent’s end and that due to these incidents and undesirable conduct from the respondent’s end the said complainant is going through huge mental agony and has become fully depressed such harassments of the said complainant from the respondent’s concern is now continuing in nature and without any permanent solution.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2650/- to render the proper service and provide to the complainant with immediate process of service or refund and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as a compensation for deficiency in service and mental harassment and agony and to pay the costs of litigation.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties inspite of receiving notice have not filed any W/V and also have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Pandua, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. It has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 69 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is very important and according to the provision of Section 69 complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus on close examination of the pleadings of the complainant it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law.
All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.
The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two pints of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the petitioner of this case.
For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 this District Commission finds that there is necessity of making scrutiny of the evidence given by the complainant. In this regard it is important to note that the ops have neither filed any W/V nor filed any evidence on affidavit to disprove the case of the complainant. On close examination of the evidence given by the complainant side it is revealed that the complainant has categorically described his case in the evidence and the evidence given by the complainant is also supported by documents. It is also revealed that the evidence (oral and documentary) which is given by the complainant side remains unchallenged and/ or uncontroverted as no cross examination has been highlighted in this case by the ops. After going through the materials of this case record this District Commission finds that there is reason to disbelieve the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of the complainant side. It is also transpires that the complainant has proved his case by way of adducing evidence in connection with the points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 which have been adopted in this case.
All the above noted factors are clearly reflecting that the complainant is entitled to get relief in this case which has been prayed by this District Commission.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 35 of 2022 be and the same is decreed ex parte.
It is held that the complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs. 2650/- from the op and also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- from the op.
Opposite parties are directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 9650/- within 45 days from the date of this order otherwise complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.
In the event of nonpayment/ non compliance of the above noted direction the opposite parties are also directed to pay and/ or deposit Rs. 5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly which is to be utilized for the purpose of poor litigant public.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
