Mr. Shyamal Lodh,

residing at 1/28/6, Mirpara  Road, P.S. Liluah,

District –Howrah,

previously resided at

2, N.S.  Road, Liluah,

Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Videocon Industries Ltd.,

            carrying on business at

            83, Liton Street ( ground floor), Entally,

            Kolkata – 700014.

2.         National Refrigeration Stores,

            authorized dealer of Videocon Industries Ltd.,

            situated at 52,  Princep Street,

            Kolkata – 700 072.-------------------------------------------------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.                  Complainant. Shri Shyamal Lodh,  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.p. no. 2 to refund Rs. 14,004/-, being the purchase price of the Air-condition machine in question along with 18% interest, to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for causing physical and mental harassment along with litigation costs and  other reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased one air-conditioner on

payment of Rs. 14,004/- on 08-04-2010 from O.P. no. 2 vide  Annexure ‘B’. The machine was manufactured by O.P. no. 1 and O.P. no. 2 is authorized dealer of O.P. no. 1. Warranty was given for five years for the compressor of the said machine. But immediately after the installation of the said machine, it started giving trouble and complainant lodged complaints being nos. KLA-041007 on 10-04-2010. Even after that complainant lodged many complaints such as KOL-2405130086 on 24-05-2013, KOL – 1006130287 on 10-06-2013, KOL-0607130131 on 06-07-2013 with O.P. no. 1 for  repairing the defects of the machine. On 25-05-2013, O.P. no. 1 sent one mechanic who tried to solve the problem and complainant had to pay Rs. 1,975/- vide Annexure ‘C’. And it is alleged by the complainant that the said mechanic told him that the defect of the machine is a manufacturing defect, and it could not fully repaired. Ultimately on 12-07-2013 and 23-07-2013, complainant sent lawyer’s notice to O.P. no. 1 asking for the replacement of the mechine in question or refund of the purchase price vide Annexures ‘A’ & ‘A1’. Although  O.P. no. 1 received the said notices, but did not take any positive action till the filing of this case. Being frustrated and aggrieved, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the  aforesaid reliefs.

3.                  Notices were sent from this Forum. Although both the o.ps.  appeared twice

but no  written version was filed by either of the o.ps . Accordingly, the  case heard ex parte against O.Ps.

4.                  Upon pleadings of the complainant  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 as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            Complainant filed his

petition of complaint along with all documents and also an affidavit has been filed by him. We have gone through all these documents and noted their contents. It is clearly written in the invoice dated 08-04-2010, Annexure ‘B’ that warrant has been provided for five years for the compressor of the machine in question. And only after two days of purchase, the machine started giving trouble for which complainant lodged complaint with O.P. no. 1 being complaint no. KLA 041007 dated 10-04-2010, which is very much undesirable. The machine has been manufactured by a company of high repute. And as a consumer goods manufacturer, O.P. no. 1 should have been more careful about utmost consumer satisfaction, which O.P. no. 1 has miserably failed to comply with. And it is also to be mentioned that although O.Ps. appeared before this Forum but they have not filed any written version which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward their favour. And all the allegations of the complainant levelled against O.Ps. remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. Accordingly, we hold that O.Ps. sold a machine having manufacturing defect which could not be rectified even after servicing.  

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 283 of 2013 ( HDF 283 of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against all the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 14,004/- to the complainant within one month from this order.  

      That the o.ps. are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., this amount of  Rs. 7,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.  

      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.