West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/11/215

Ram Chandra Rajak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Videocon Industries Ltd.(East Zone) and another - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2013

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Unit-I, Kolkata
http://confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/215
 
1. Ram Chandra Rajak
Flat no. 19/2A, D.H. Road, Kolkata-700104.
Kolkata
WB
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Videocon Industries Ltd.(East Zone) and another
39C, Harish Mukherjee Street, Kolkata-700026.
KOlkata
WB
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MRS. Smt. Sharmi Basu MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

 

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 215/2011

 

1)                   Ram Chandra Rajak,   

Genexx Valley, Flat No.19/2A,

Diamond Harbour Road, Joka,

KIolkata-104. P.S. Thakurpukur.                                                                  ---------- Complainant

 

---Versus---

1)                   Videocon Industries Ltd. (East Zone),

39C, Harish Mukherjee Road,

Kolkata-26, P.S. Alipore.

 

2)       Sales Emporium (South),

226, Diamond Harbour Road,

Kolkata-60, P.S. Behala.                                                                                    ---------- Opposite Parties

 

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.                                                        

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member

                                        

Order No.   19    Dated  30/01/2013.

 

Smt. S. Basu, Member.

               

            In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a refrigerator on 10.1.10 from o.p. no.2, seller and o.p. no.1 is the manufacturer of the said refrigerator. On 4.9.10 complainant lodged a complaint as the refrigerator was not working and o.ps. repaired the refrigerator by rotating the ‘timer switch’. Again after some days the shelves of the refrigerator were cracked and the body of the refrigerator was also cracked and the refrigerator also went out of order and complainant lodged complaint on 21.1.11 and some persons of o.p. no.1 ultimately assured to replace the defective parts of the  refrigerator i.e. ‘defrost timer’ and also to give free service. But complainant claimed to the o.ps. for replacing the refrigerator with a new one which would be free from any defect. But o.ps. denied to do the same. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant purchased the refrigerator on 10.1.10 and this position is undisputed, but immediately after purchasing the refrigerator i.e. 4.9.10 (within the warranty period) the refrigerator started posing problem and the same was rectified by the personnel of o.p. no.1 and thereafter again some problems cropped up and matter was brought to the notice of o.p. no.2 on 21.1.11 after lapse of the warranty period and the personnel of o.p. no.2 visited the house of complaint and ultimately assured to replace the defective parts viz. ‘defrost timer’ and suggested to replace the other defective parts at the cost of the complainant.

            It is observed by this Forum that immediate after purchasing the goods in question some problems cropped up and we hold that the same occurred owing to manufacturing defect and we hold that the liability of manufacturing defective goods is upon the manufacturer i.e. o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.1 cannot shirk off its liability and is liable to replace the same of  a new refrigerator of same model which will be free from any defect. As such, we find that o.p. no.2 being seller is not liable for the aforesaid manufacturing defect and we also find no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.2 in case of giving free service within the warranty period after purchasing the goods in question. Therefore, complainant is eligible to get the relief in part as prayed for.  

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.1 and without cost against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 is directed to replace the refrigerator with a new one of the same model which will be free from any defect to the complainant and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Complainant is directed to return the old refrigerator to o.p. no.1 immediately after receipt of the awarded sum and also new defect free refrigerator of the same model from o.p. no.1.

            Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of the COPRA, 1986.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Smt. Sharmi Basu]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.