DATE OF FILING : 30/01/2015
DATE OF S/R : 09/03/2015
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 15/12/2015
SMT MUKULA NEGEL
W/O Sri Ajit Kumar Negel
Sankrail Champatala (Dargatala Negel Para)
P.O. and P.S. Sankrail,
Howrah 711 313………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
1. The Proprietor, Sreema Service
authotized Distributor of Goderj Appliances Ltd.
Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Chotobabu Market Andul Station,
Howrah 711 302
2. The Service Manager, M/S K P Cool Point
The Authorized Service Provider
Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd.
288, G.T. Rood (3rd floor)
Babar Danga Petrol Pump P.O. Salkia
Howrah 711106
3. The Godrej & Boyce Mfg. co. Ltd.
head office at Proscar Nagar,
Vikhroli, Mumbai 400 079 and Kolkata
Branch office at Block G.N. Sector V Salt Lake City,
Kolkata 700 091……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, Smt. Mukula Negel, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to provide proper service with regard to change of main door of the refrigerator in question or to refund the purchase price being Rs. 9,600/- of the said refrigerator including service charge of Rs. 275/-, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant bought one refrigerator on payment of Rs. 9600/- vide annexure ‘A’ invoice dt. 01/05/2008 from O.P. 1 being the authorized distributer of Godrej Appliances, who also provided the warranty card duly stamped by it. In that warranty card, complainant’s refrigerator was covered “with a unique 10 year Rust Protection Plan” from the date of purchase vide Annexure ‘B’. But during the warranty period the main door of the fridge became rusty, so the complainant informed O.P. 1. And the authorized person from O.P. 2, the authorized service centre of O.P. 1 who is the manufacture of the said fridge, visited on 05/12/2013, who after inspection endorsed on the face of the receipt dt. 05/12/2013 as “Main door rust M/door to be change” on receipt of Rs.275/- from the complainant as service charge vide annexure ‘C’.
- Thereafter for several occasions complainant requested O.Ps. to solve the problem by changing the said fridge. But O.Ps. remained silent without doing anything towards post sale service as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Even she wrote a letter to O.P. 2 on 26/12/2014 vide annexure. But no fruitful result came out. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were served upon the O.Ps. O.P. 1 appeared and filed W/V but O.P. nos. 2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed any W/V. Accordingly, case was heard on contest against o.p. no. 1 and ex parte against o.p. nos. 2 & 3.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- It is the specific plea taken by O.P. 1 that guarantee provided by manufacturer only So, O.P. 1 has no liability towards the complainant regarding any complaint against the product sold. So as per their version even after receiving the entire consideration amount from the complainant for selling the fridge, they have no responsibility towards the complainant in respect of providing any post sale service for the said product. We all know that manufacturer always engages same authorized distributors to sell their products. And there is no direct connection between the buyer and the manufacturer at the time of buying the product by the customers, herein the complainant. Complainant pays the entire consideration amount to the authorized distributor, herein o.p. no. 1. And any problem arises out of that sale procedure, complainant always informs the said distributor, herein, o.p. no. 1. O.P. no. 1 sent technical person, attached to o.p. no. 2, and received Rs. 275/- from the complainant for giving post sale service. But no fruitful result came out. At the time of selling the product, manufacture allure the customer herein the complainant, by giving a warranty for 10 year rust protection plan. But when the time for complying that warranty arose, neither the manufacture nor the o.p. no. 1 came forward with a positive step which became very much harassing for the complainant. It is to be kept in mind that the product is a very useful household gadget. So o.ps.’ non action on their part definitely harassed the complainant beyond any doubt. So we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayer of complainant should be allowed.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 41 of 2015 ( HDF 41 of 2015) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 1 and ex parte against o.p. nos. 2 & 3.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to replace the main door of the fridge in question within one month from the date of this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged till actual replacement.
That they are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.
That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum till full realization.
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.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
