West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/172/2016

Sri Arijit Mukherjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Godrej interio, GIRNAR - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

   Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.172/2016

 

                       Sri Arijit Mukherjee, S/o-Sri Tilak Mukherjee,  Diamond Plaza, Block-B/201, Barabetia,

P.O.-Changual & P.S.-Kharagpur(L),

District-Paschim Medinipur..………..……Complainant.

Vs.

                                                                       The Proprietor, Godrej Interio, GIRNAR at Inda,

                                                                                     O.T. Road, Kharagpur(T),

                                                                       Dist-Paschim Medinipur.....…….….Opp. Party.

                                                    

                For the Complainant   :  Mr. Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya, Advocate.

                For the O.P.                  :  Mr. Somasish Panda, Advocate.

 

          Decided on 25/08/2017

                               

                                                                                          ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member   

 

                    In brief the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased two wall units from O.P. with consideration cost of Rs.35,738/- on 29/07/2016. At the time of home delivery the complainant found that so many items are damaged and defective. So, complainant returned to accept those goods. O.P. returned to total replacement but was agree to replace only defective spares. Complainant lodged several complains to the O.p. as well as manufacturing unit of O.P. but they did not pay any heed to the complain.  Complainant approached before this Forum for getting relief as per prayer of complaint.  

                                                                                                                                                            Contd……………P/2

 

                                                                                                   ( 2 )

O.P. contested the case by filing written  objection  denying the allegations of complainant, stating  inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable, this O.P.  being the stockiest is only liable to delivery, he is not a manufacturer.  This O.P. always ready to replace the said article as company rules and regulation as per terms and condition of warranty. O.P. prayed for rejection of complaint.  

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable  ?
2. Is the O.P. negligent and  deficient in service ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed  for ?    

                                                         Decision with reasons

      All these points are taken together for brevity and consideration.

      We travelled over the evidence, documents and  materials on record, it appears that it is admitted fact, that complainant  purchased two wall-units from  O.P. of Rs.35,738/- on 29/07/2016. At the time of home delivery the complainant found that said two articles in  so many items are defective and damages, as such  he did not ready to receive those goods and also was disagree to sign the invoice challan. O.P. on several occasions lodged written complaints to the O.P., manufacture and also Consumers Affairs Department  for settled the disputes but in vain.

        Complainant to prove his case adduced evidence with affidavit and tendered himself as witness of P.W.1 and also files some documents which are marked exhibited  (1 to 6) respectively and he was cross-examined by O.P. Complainant admits in his evidence,  that  those two purchased articles are in the house of complainant. In cross-examine of O.P., complainant stated that he is agree to accept the  proposal that if O.P. pay the sale price with cost of  harassment, O.P. also adduced evidences of two witness and filed same documents which are marked (exhibited A to E) respectively. OPW 1 admits in his cross-examination that he has not returned any amount towards  the value of those goods. He  also admits that  he did not give any reply of complainant towards return of price. OPW 2 is a mechanic of the company.

     It reveals from the original Tax in voice that two wall units were purchased on 29/07/2016 of Rs.35,738/-.  In the written objection O.P. has not denied regarding damage and fungus patches of those two wall units. Moreover O.P. stated in the written objection  that O.P.  is always ready  to replace the said article. At the time of argument O.P. submitted that they are ready to pay the sale price of those goods.  Complainant stated in the cross examination of O.P. that he was not provided any warranty paper.

                                                                                                                                                              Contd……………P/3

 

( 3 )

     In view of the above discussions we find that from the inception of purchased articles were damaged and defective and O.P. also admits the fact but disputes arose on the issue of replacement.  From materials of the  record we find that it is very  common thing, no one  cannot  accept any goods with defect or damage condition  or cannot agree to repairs the damage portion in new purchase articles. O.P.  should not  sale such type of defective or damage goods to the  customers as they have received actual price inclusive all taxes. Complainant admits that those two articles are in the house of complainant.

    In view of the above discussions we find  that this case is maintainable  as per law, O.P.  is negligent practicing unfair trade and was not providing any service to  the customer for such  O.P. is deficient in rendering service as a service provider. For such act of O.P. , complainant has been suffering mental pain and harassment for such  complainant is entitled to get relief.

   Complaint case succeeds.     

                                           Hence, it is,

                                                                              Ordered,

                                           that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

  O.P. is directed to pay Rs.35,738/- of value of the purchased goods to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

  O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation  for harassment, mental pain and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant  within stipulated period.

 Complainant is also directed to returned back  two wall-units to the O.P. in the event of received the  amount as per order of this Forum.

 Failure to comply O.P. shall be liable to pay  Rs.2,000/- per month to be paid to the legal Aid Fund of this Forum till full realization.

               Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                       Sd/- P.K. Singha                             Sd/- S. Sarkar                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                            Member                                           Member                                 President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur