Judgment : Dt.30.8.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Asit Baran Raut, son of Late S. K. Raut residing at 4A, Northern Avenue, P.S.-Chitpore, Kolkata-700 037 against Unique Service Centre, having its office at 19, South Purbachal Road, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078 praying for refund of Rs.8,000/- together statutory interest and compensation and litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that one Sumita Raut who happens to be the wife of Complainant purchased a Kent R.O. Supreme model water purifier on 29.12.2014 which was installed in the middle in the month of January, 2016 at premises No.162A, Dum Dum Park, Kolkata-700 055 and at the time of purchase the company  has agreed to provide free service for one year. Prior to the expiry of the said free service of one year one of the technicians of the Sun Services visited the house of Complainants wife and persuaded Complainant’s wife to enter into an Annual Maintenance Contract under the said Sun Services being the authorized service franchisee of the manufacturing company of Kent R.O. Complainant paid Rs.9,500/- towards charges of annual maintenance of the machine for a period of two years. One of the bosom friends Indrajit Barman who happens to be one of the technicians of the OP company to came to the Complainant and made representation that OP is very much diligent and sincere in rendering better service for maintenance of Kent R.O. and so Complainant paid an account payee cheque for Rs.8,000/- dt. 6.2.2016 On 26.2.2016 when the Complainant had been to premises No.162A, Dum Dum Park to see Manoranjan Pandey who is the owner of a portion of the ground floor learnt that she has already signed the contract form for availing of services towards annual maintenance. Accordingly, Complainant, over phone, requested Indrajit Barman not to give effect to the said contract and Complainant explained every details to him. It is true that Complainant has agreed to avail the service by way of maintenance  for the same period, but, his wife has also agreed to avail such service from the different company. In view of such situation, Complainant wrote a letter dt.29.2.2016 through the Advocate to treat the said contract which was not acted upon to cancel and refund the money. The letter was duly acknowledged to have been received by the OP on 5.3.2016. Further, Complainant has stated that since the contract was cancelled she is entitled to refund Rs.8,000/-.

            OP appeared by filing vakalatnama and prayed for time for filing written version, but did not file written version, even after being given three opportunities. So, the case was heard ex-parte. After a lapse of about three months suddenly, OP appeared and filed a written version and prayed for its acceptance. But, this Forum rejected that written version on the ground that the case was already fixed for ex-parte hearing. That written version is with the record, where OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            In this regard, it is submitted that Complainant entered into an agreement for annual maintenance with the OP Unique Services Centre on 6.2.2016. It, further, appears that Complainant had already entered into an annual maintenance contract with one Sun Services for two years. Now, it is the allegation of the Complainant that she herself cancelled the 2nd agreement for annual maintenance because she was not aware as to whether one agreement for annual maintenance already existed. Accordingly, we are of the view that since Complainant herself cancelled, in normal course OP is not bound to refund the money. But, justice requires that OP should refund Rs.5,000/- after deducting the administrative charges. Original agreement has also not been filed. So far as the question of granting of compensation and litigation are concerned, we are of the view that the dispute arose due to the fault of the Complainant and so those cannot be allowed.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/146/2017 is allowed ex-parte. OP is directed to refund Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant within three months from this order, in default the amount shall carry 10% interest p.a.