West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/92/2012

Srimanta Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager/Director/Prop., Authorised Signatory, UBEROI LMITED - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.92/2012                                                        Date of disposal: 17/01/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. R. Sen. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : xxxxxxxxx

          

Srimanta Kumar Das, S/O-Late Ghnashyam Das, Vill-Bulbulchati (near Kali Mandir), P.O.-Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharapur(T), Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

   The Manager/Director/Prop., Authorised Signatory, UBEROI LMITED, 22/1, 

   Jawaharlal Neheru Road, Kolkata-700087……………………Op.                                                    

                  

                  Complainant is present. Today is fixed for exparte hearing. Hd. the Ld. Advocate and perused the documents. Op. takes many times and ultimately filed W/O.  Thereafter he did not take any steps. Thus, there exist strong reasons to believe that the Op. is willfully avoiding his appearance in the Ld. Court. On the last 6-days Op. is absent without steps.

                In view of the facts and circumstance and the materials on record there is no option but to hear the case exparte. Accordingly the case is heard and considered.

                The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Motorised Trade Mill Machine                    (FOX-EXER) from the Op. on 10/10/2011 upon payment of a sum of 33,000/- only. The Op. shall send the machine along with Warranty Card, owners manual and other documents to the address of the complainant and also for demonstration.  But on acceptance of delivery of the machine, the complainant noticed that there is no warranty Card.  The owner’s manual is without any name of the company.

                The complainant informed the matter through phone to the Op. and also requested him to send the Op. men for demonstration.  In reply the OP advised the complainant to start the machine assuring that the demonstrator will go later on.

                Accordingly the complainant started the said Trade Mill Machine on 18/10/2011 but on 4/11/2011 the said machine suddenly started dysfunctioning.

      Contd…………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

                The complainant informed the Op. regarding the problem. The authorized technician disclosed that the fuse of P.C.B. has been damaged and the same will be installed. After the lapse of one month one Mr. Debnath of the Op. concern tested the whole machine and took away the L.C.D. panel for proper testing. The complainant received a phone where the Op. demanded a sum of 7,300/- from the complainant for new replacement of P.C.B.  Accordingly the complainant paid the some and again the Op. send Mr. Debnath for installation of P.C.B. Board.  Even there is leakage in the L.C.D. panel. Mr. Debnath suggested to the complainant to alter the machine and pay  3,700/-(Three thousand seven hundred) only.

                  Thus, the complainant is facing various problems in respect of the said machinesince purchase. Op. neither supply the Warranty Card against the machine nor has demonstrated the machine.

     In order to establish the case, complainant files the following documents:-

                1.Xerox copy of letter dated 24/03/12

                2. Xerox copy of notice dated 24/02/12

                 3. Xerox copy of receipt

                4. Xerox copy of Vat Cash Memo.

                5. Xerox copy of Bill

                6.Xerox copy of Bill.

               In view of the case of  both the parties it is crystal clear that the Op. avoids discharging his lawful duty and there is no whisper of such service from the Op. No. 1 towards the compensation of 69,360/- (Sixty nine thousand three hundred sixty) only claimed by the complainant and the interest there upon.  Upon careful consideration of the case alongwith the documents filed by firisty, it appears that there is strong ground to hold that the Op is liable for deficiency of service and as such the complainant should be compensated with 33,000/- (Thirty three thousand) only in the context of the price of the machine purchased by him with litigation cost of 2000/- (Two thousand) only.    

                Hence,

                           Ordered,

                                             that the case be and the same is allowed exparte. The complainant do get  an award 33,000/- (Thirty three thousand) only  on account of  compensation and litigation cost of 2,000/- (Two thousand) only .

              The Op. is hereby directed to make payment the amount of 33,000/- (Thirty three thousand) only  and litigation cost of 2,000/- (Two thousand) only  payable to the complainant

Contd…………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

within 30 days from the date of this order in default the complainant is at liberty to proceed with the provisions of law in this behalf.

             Copy of judgment and order be supplied free of cost.        

    

Dic. & Corrected by me

       

         Member                                         Member                                             President

                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur