DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C. C.  CASE NO.435/2016

    Date of Filing:                   Date of Admission:                       Date of Disposal:

     12.07.2016                             14.07.2016                                     05.01.2018

 Complainant:        Tarulata Guha Thakurta, L-1/6, Regent Estate, Jadavpur,

                                  P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 092.

                                                                   Vs.

Opposite Parties:  1) The Regional Manager of Godrej & Boyce

                                       Manufacturing Company Limited, Sector-V, Salt Lake,

                                        Kolkata-700 091.

                                   2) The Manager of Sonovision, 54B/1, Central Road,

                                        Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 092.

                                    3) M/s. S.S. Enterprise, Godrej Smart Care,

                                         Authorised Service Provider, 19, Keyatala Road,

                                          Kolkata-700 029.

P R E S E N T   :-   Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay…………President.

                         :-Sri  Siddhartha Ganguli  ….………………………Member.

                         :-  Smt. Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.

ORDER: 14

This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not take any step either to repair/replace the defective refrigerator or to refund the price of the same as paid by her during its purchase.

The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that she purchased one Godrej 190 Ltr refrigerator on 13.02.2015 by making payment of Rs.14,500/- towards the cost of the same. Within one month from the date of its purchase some defects cropped up i.e. white spot sustained at the back side of the said refrigerator like fungus, water accrued over the fridge, rubber valve of the window also sustained with black spot like fungus, which  are beyond clearance and the Complainant immediately informed the matter to the OP-1 & 2. Accordingly the OPs send their technicians on 30.06.2015, who opined that the problems occurred due to accrued of iron of water over head the fridge. The technician took photograph of the fridge and sent the same to the Company for taking necessary action. But no action was taken and in this manner about five months elapsed. Then the Complainant again informed the matter to the OPs and then the OP-2 send a technician who rubbed the fridge in different techniques, but no effect was made and the Complainant was told by the said technician to send the refrigerator to the Company for replacement. On 03.12.2015 the Complainant informed the matter again to the Company, though one personnel came and took photograph of the said fridge, but to no effect. Then the Branch Manager of the OP-1 was informed by the Complainant through written correspondences wherein request was made by her for replacement of the said fridge. At that point of time the Complainant was told by the said person of the OP-1 that it was not possible to replace the same and he will send one technician to rub and wash the fridge till its warranty period. Thereafter the Complainant lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, C.A. & F.B.P., salt Lake for mediation but the same was failed. So the said authority had to drop the complaint with a direction to the Complainant to file a specific complaint before the Consumer Forum for her redressal. Having no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum praying for direction upon the OPs either to repair/replacement of the defective refrigerator or to refund her a sum of Rs.14,500/- as paid toward the cost of the refrigerator during its purchase, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- due to harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to her.

The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version contending that during purchase of the refrigerator it was totally in perfect condition and being satisfied with the same the Complainant purchased the same and took delivery. Due to ambiance of the premises of the Complainant the fungus cropped up at the back side of the said fridge, as alleged. For coming to a conclusive conclusion in this respect an expert opinion is necessary who can file an expert opinion/report upon examining the alleged defects as to why such defects have occurred therein. The OP-1 has further submitted that as and when the Complainant gave intimation, then and there technician was sent at the residence of the Complainant and attempts were made for removal of the alleged defects. As the Ops have provided their service as and when required, there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as alleged by the Complainant. This complaint is filed by the Complainant with mal-intention only to grab some money through an illegal manner. After purchasing a product the responsibility casts upon the purchaser to maintain the same as well as the seller is also under the obligation to provide service as per requirement of the purchaser. In the instant complaint the OPs tried their best to provide service as per requirement of the Complainant, inspite of this the Complainant has filed this complaint. According to the OP-1 the complaint being vague and baseless is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Both parties have adduced evidence on affidavit along with some papers and documents in support of their respective contentions. The Complainant has also filed brief notes of argument.

We have carefully perused the record; papers and documents filed by the parties and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that admittedly the Complainant purchased one refrigerator by making payment of Rs.14,500/- towards the cost of the same. The allegation of the Complainant is that within a very short span some defects occurred in the said refrigerator, which could not be rectified or removed by the technician of the OP-1. For this reason by filing this complaint the Complainant has prayed for either repair the defect/replace the refrigerator with a new one or to refund the price of the same as paid by her during its purchase. In the written version the OP-1 has taken the plea that as per intimation and information of the Complainant the technician of the OP-1 attended the said fridge and tried their best to remove the defect. It is further stated by the OP-1 that without an expert opinion from an Expert, the present dispute cannot be adjudicated upon. We got much substance in the averment of the OP-1 that in case of defect in the goods an expert opinion is necessary and without the same the defects cannot be ascertained. But in the instant complaint no prayer was made by the Complainant by filing an application seeking for an expert opinion. So as no expert opinion is before us we are not in a position for coming to the conclusion the reason for such defects as occurred in the said refrigerator, as alleged. As the Complainant did not take any step to corroborate her allegation with the expert evidence, hence the complaint fails.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the consumer complaint being no-435/2016 is hereby dismissed on contest. However considering the facts and circumstance of this complaint there is no order as to cost.       

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.              

Member                                             Member                                            President

Dictated & Corrected by me