Date of filing      : 17.09.2014

                Date of S/R         : 14.01.2015

                Date of Order     : 29.04.2016

                Md. Anwarul Hasan Ansari,

              S/o- Lt. Md. Nurul Hasan Ansari,

              Residing on  holding No. 292,

              G. T. Road (South),  P.S.-Shibpur,               

              District-Howrah………………………………………………………………Complainant

                                                                Vs.

              The Manager,

               RRL CDTT AVANI RIVER MALL SHALKIA HOWRAH

               Avani River Side,

               32, Jagar Banerjee Ghat Road,

               Police Station-Sbibpur,

               District-Howrah ( Reliance Retail Limited) 711102.

P R E S E N T

………………………………………………………………………………………..

President : Shri B. D. Nanda.

Member: Smt. J. Saha.

Member: Shri A. K. Pathak.

F I N A LO R D E R

                This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the   petitioner Md. Anwarul Hasan Ansari against the O.P. Manager, RRL CDTT AVANI RIVER MALL SHALKIA, HOWRAH, praying for replacement of the Water Hitter. 

               The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one Reconnect Water heater Rhwhg-2501 WOM-EA quantity 1000, serial No. 201205289020546 on 17.11.2013 from the O.P. on payment of Rs. 7789.74/- and the water heater was delivered. on 19.11.2013 and installed by the employee of the O.P. on 26.11.2013 when the petitioner came to know that the water heater was defective and then and then he informed the matter to the O.P. who promised to replace the said water heater but he did not replace the same which was under coverage or under 2 years of warrantee.  Finding no alternative the petitioner approached the consumer Affairs Department but the O.P. did not appear there.  This a case of clear Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the O.P.  and so the petitioner has filed this case.

                  The O.P. contested the case by filing a W/V denying the allegation made against him and submitted that the case is not maintainable and is bad for non-joinder of the party .  The O.P. further submits that the service personnel of the O.P. went to the house of the petitioner and found that the Water heater was already installed by the petitioner and  so the O.P. is not liable to replace the heater and the case be dismissed.

                On the above cases of the parties the following issues are frame :

1. Is the case  maintainable in present Form ?
2. Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
3. Whether the case is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties ?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the  reliefs as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

                All this issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip off reiteration.  In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit as well as the documents being the delivery note, the money receipt issued by the O.P. which proved the fact that the petitioner purchased the Water heater from the O.P. on 18.11.2013 and paid the total consideration and it is the case of the petitioner that on the very day of the installation on 26.11.2013 the Water heater went out of order and inspite of water heater remaining under the warrantee period , the O.P. took no step and simply stating in the written version that the petitioner himself installed the Water heater prior to the employee of the O.P.  visited the house of petitioner for installation and so they are no liable.  Such a anverment in the W/V by the O.P. will not relieve the O.P. when there is clear warrantee of 2 years for the water heater and the petitioner approached the Forum well within 2 years and so he is entitled to relief as prayed for and the O.P. has no other alternative but to replace the water heater as per clause b (1) of section 14 of the C.P. Act 1986 where is it is categorically stated that “if the District Forum is satisfied that there was defect in the goods purchased then the District Forum shall issue an order to the Opposite party directing him to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect.”  In the instant case the petitioner prayed for replacement of the Water heater and he is entitled to get the relief as he approached  the Forum within warrantee period.   

                 Thus the claim case succeeds and the court fees paid is correct.

Hence,

                                                                                Ordered,

that the Consumer Case No.  506/2014 be and the same is allowed in contest without cost and compensation as not prayed for.    The petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for except cost and compensation  and the O.P. is directed to replace the Water heater with a new of in the similar description  within 30 days from the date of order failing which  the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.

Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost.. 

Dictated and corrected

by me

     ( B. D. Nanda)

President, C.D.R.F. Howrah