Sabina Yasmin,

wife of Qazi Safiur Rahman,

residing at Flat no. B ( 2^nd floor),

181/4/3, Andul Road, P.O. B. Garden, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 103.------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Managing Director,

             Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd.,

B-1/A-14, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi – 110044.

2.         The General Manager,

Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

G.T. Road ( South ), Kazi Para,

P.O. & P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711102.

3.         The Manager,

TIME – O – SERVICE,

37 & 38, Mohinath Porel Lane, Salkia,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711106. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.      The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the  C.P. Act, 1986 ( as

amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction upon the O.Ps.  to refund the purchase price of the refrigerator with interest together with compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lac as the O.P. in spite of repeated requests has not been  paying heed to the demand of the complainant.

2.      The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a HAIER Refrigerator

being model no. HAIER HRF – 325CVF –WRCL on 03-03-2012 from O.P. no. 2 at the cost of  Rs. 20,5000/- including VAT Rs. 2439.33 for his personal use. The said refrigerator started malfunctioning from the very beginning and brought to the notices to

the O.Ps. but subsequently the O.Ps. did not take any positive action to set right the same. Several  correspondences are made verbally / through advocate notices but no results were yielded  and finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps. praying for relief and compensation.  Hence the complaint.   

3.      The o.p. nos. 1 & 3 in their written version challenged the maintainability of the

complaint and contended interalia that the complainant did not give any scope to the O.Ps. for fulfilling the demand as well as any opportunity for replacement of the said refrigerator and they are ready to replace the refrigerator to mitigate the grievances of the complainant. So the complaint should be dismissed.

4.      Notice was served upon O.P. no. 2, but none appears on behalf of the O.P. no. 2

nor they file any written version. So the case was heard ex parte against O.P. no. 2.

5.   Upon pleadings of  parties two points arose for determination :

            i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

      6.   Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It appears from the

complaint that the complainant purchased a Hair Refrigerator on the dated 03-03-2012. The concerned cash memo dated 30-03-2012 reflects the same. The said item of goods got malfunctioning, brought to the notice of the O.Ps. who did not pay heed to the demand of the complainant. It is also noticed on record from the complaint that the defect in question in the refrigerator is inherent in nature and basically of no use and is lying idle at the complainant residence for which the complainant is passing horrible  days in which she has to suffer tremendous mental and physical pain and agony and harassment due to such malfunctioning of the refrigerator.

      7.   That in the back drop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that the O.Ps.’ action is nothing but a gross negligence for providing required  service for which  it is concluded that O.Ps. sold defective goods to the complainant.

            Accordingly we hold our considered opinion that the action of O.Ps. for selling a defective goods is a deficient in nature which tantamount   gross negligence and deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation as prayed for.

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

In the result, the case succeeds.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  33 of 2013 ( HDF 33  of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.p. nos. 1 & 3 and ex parte without cost against O.P. no. 2.  

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2  be directed jointly and severally   to refund the cost price of refrigerator of Rs. 18,062/- ( Rs. 20,5000 – Rs. 2,438.33 ( VAT ) with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect 03-12-2012 within 30 days from the date  of this order failure to act it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization. 

      The complainant is also directed to return the existing refrigerator  which is lying under the custody of the complainant within the time bound as stated.

      The complainant do get an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                          (    P. K. Chatterjee)

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  T. K. Bhattacharya  )

 President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.