In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.141/2012.
1) Dibyendu Datta,
90/3, B.R. Ahmedkar Road,
New Barrackpore, P.S. Ghola, Kolkata-700131. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Manger / Authorized Person Representing
Vineet Trafin (P) Ltd.
66, Bentinck Street, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-69.
2) The Manger / Authorized Person Representing
TI Cycle of India
Chabildas Tower, 2nd Floor,
6A, Middleton Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-71. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 14 Dated 30-08-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant purchased a Hercules Cassier Treadmill on on 22.6.11 from o.p. no.1, to wit, Vineet Trafin (P) Ltd. vide bill no.BSA/047/1011. The set was chosen as per their valued and expert advice. They suggested the set tallying with his requirements. The set was, as agreed upon, delivered to the residence of complainant on 28.6.11 by Kundu Lorry – transporter.
The set was used for only a week or so and the belt of the machine was torn and there occurred rust on the so called steel portion of the body. Complainant made a complain on 11.7.11 by phone for tearing of the belt and the complain no.591. Finally on 30.7.11 complainant talked the o.p. executive but nothing yielded. However the belt was changed on 3.8.11.
The newly set belt gave rise to big noise and on my persuasions and request, they took remedial measures to same the problem on 6.8.11 vide service report no.79 against the complaint dt.11.7.11. The noise problem was solved but there still remained the meter reading of pulse problems still persisted and the concerned engineer also remarked so in black and white.
Complainant apprised Mr. Surojit Das – the concerned executive again on 21.8.11 and he confessed that the low quality belt installed was the cause of such persistent problems. Mr. Das assured that a ‘super quality belt’ would be installed soon to ward off the problems permanently and accordingly the belt was changed on 29.8.11 after several reminder over phone and finally after the booking of complaint on 28.8.11.
Within a day a new problem gave rise causing troubles. The belt frequently halted during rotation making the total matter a mess.
One Mr. Das, representing the o.p. told on 2.9.11 that the capacity of the machine does not fit complainant, though Mr. Vineet representing o.p. assured complainant the model is the best one and suits complainant’s purpose the best for complainant for domestic purpose and the capacity of the machine is upto 105 kgs. Thus the … verson of o.p. is confusing. They have some hard deceived complainant. The set is defective – ab initio.
Mr. Das again sent a machine on 7.9.12 who also failed and found the Deck Board is broken. Complainant reiterated his demand for the replacement. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.2 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. no.2 in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. O.p. no.1 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.1.
Decision with reasons:
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that O.p. no.2 had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.2 and ex parte without cost against o.p. no.1. O.p. no.2 is directed to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only towards the cost of the machine in question and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is directed to return the old machine lying with him within 21 days after realization of the aforesaid awarded amount.
