Dt. of filing – 31/07/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 15/07/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Beauty Mukherjee under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party namely The Manager, Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on his part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that she purchased Morphy Induction Cooker Chef Xpress – 400 – 1 on 21/6/2018 from the Opposite Party on payment of cash of Rs.2,600/- . Complainant used the said cooker on 22/6/2018 but found it defective. So, she took the said cooker to the shop of the Opposite Party and requested for return of the said Induction Cooker but the Opposite Party refused to return the same. Several time Complainant approached the Opposite Party but all in vain. Opposite Party neither returned the said Induction Cooker nor refunded the amount of Rs.2,600/- inspite of repeated request. So a notice was sent by the Complainant but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed. Ultimately the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the Opposite Party either to replace the defective Induction Cooker or to refund the said amount of Rs.2,600/-, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition a copy of invoice showing purchase of the Induction Cooker and the copy of the notice dated 4/7/2018 sent by the Complainant through her Ld. Advocate.
On perusal of the record it appears that notice was sent to the Opposite Party but as no step was taken by the Opposite Party, vide order dated 30/1/2019, the case was directed to be proceeded ex-parte.
So, the only point requires determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
In order to substantiate her claim, Complainant has only filed copy of invoice wherefrom it appears she purchased one Induction Cooker from the shop of the Opposite Party on 21/6/2018. The description of the said Induction Cooker is MORPHY INDUCTION COOKER CHEF XPRESS – 400 – 1/R1660690000020, but barring a legal notice sent by the Complainant through her Ld. Advocate, there is absolutely no material that the Complainant had approached the said Opposite Party. However, it may be pertinent to point out that the said invoice which is relied upon by the Complainant bears the following terms and conditions:-
- Goods once sold cannot be returned or exchanged.
- For any type of complaint, please contact manufacturers. Dealers are not liable for any claim after delivery.
So, the abovementioned terms and condition in the invoice is very categorical that for any manufacturing defect, manufacturer company is liable and not the dealer. Said terms & condition was within the knowledge of the Complainant from the date of purchase. But admittedly Complainant has not complained the matter before the manufacturer or the service centre of the company at any time. Neither the Complainant has made the company as party in this case. Complainant has also not filed any document to show that she had approached the Opposite Party at any time excepting sending of the demand notice. So there is absolutely no document in order to substantiate the claim that the Induction Cooker was defective. Be that as it may, since there is specific terms and condition stated in the invoice itself, referred to above, in the absence of the manufacturing company as party, Complainant is not entitled to the relief as prayed and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/459/2018 is dismissed ex-parte.
