DATE OF FILING : 06.12.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 06.01.2017.
DATE OF ORDER : 25.08.2017.
Mr. Pradip @ Pradeep Kumar Das,
son of late Gour Mohan Das,
residing at Village & P.O. Jhorehat Rajbansipara,
Andul Mouri, P.S. Sankrail,
District Howrah,
PIN 711302…………… …….………………………….……..…… COMPLAINANT.
1. Voltas Limited,
Grinder House, A Block, 2nd floor,
8, N.S. Road, Kolkata,
PIN 700 001.
2. Rahit Refrigerator Company,
34, Creek Row, Kolkata,
PIN 711 114. ………..…………………….………………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 : Shri A.K. Pathak.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli ).
F I N A L O R D E R
1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Mr. Pradip @ Pradeep Kumar Das, against the o.ps., Voltas Limited & another, praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to replace the A.C. Machine of the petitioner by installing a new one or properly repaired the existing A.C. Machine and also directing the o.ps. to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one 1.5 ton A.C. machine from the o.p. no. 2, Rahit Refrigerator Company, of 34, Creek Row, Kolkata 7000 34, on payment of a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- on 31.03.2015 and at time of delivery of the machine the o.p. no. 2, as agent of o.p. no. 1, issued warranty card that in case of any problem of the A.C. machine, the same would be entertained free of costs within the warranty period. He further submitted that he purchased the machine for himself and his family members and the said machine was installed at the roof of the petitioner at his house at Village and Post Office Jhorehat Rajbansipara, Andul Mouri, P.S. Sankrail, On 04.04.2015 problem was created in the machine and the same problem still persists. The matter was informed to the Voltas Company, o.p. no. 1, and the mechanic of the o.p. asserted that there was leakage which is yet to be repaired. The o.ps. also attended the machine on 14.04.2016 and failed to restore the same. The o.ps. must take proper step for repair of the machine and removed the problem cropped up in the A.C. machine in default the o.ps. must replace the machine of the petitioner as it is within the warranty period as could be noticed from the warranty card.
4. In spite of service of notices, the o.ps. did not appear and thus the case is heard ex parte against the o.ps.
5. The only point to be decided here is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit as well as documents in the form of one job card dated 14.3.2016 and another dated 26.3.2016 and letters written by the petitioner to the o.p. no. 2 and his purchase receipt showing that he purchased the A.C,. machine at a consideration ofRs. 40,000/-. All these documents corroborated and confirmed the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner proving the case fact that in spite of several attempts the mechanic of the o.p. no. 1 could not repair the machine and though they told the petitioner in letter dated 21.01.2017 that problems were rectified and resolved and the machine is completely O.K. There is no problem in the machine and they gave a special warranty to the petitioner from 05.01.2017 to 04.6.2017 and requested the petitioner to withdraw the case against them. Thus from the letter of the it is clear that till 25.01.2017 there was defects in the machine. Even though the machine was purchased in 2015 and the defects continued for long two years during the warranty and the o.p. no. 1, Voltas Limited, conceding the same in the letter dated stating that they solved allthe problems and said letter itself proved the fact that the machine was a defective one and it should be replaced by the company taking back the old machine which was installed in the house of the petitioner where the cause of action arose. ThisForum thought it wise not to award any compensation in favour of the petitioner as the o.p. no. 1 through out last two years attended the machine but for filing this case the petitioner be compensated with litigation costs ofRs. 5,000/-. All these above documents went unchallenged and there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioner who is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and thus the petitioner has succeeded in proving the case ex parte.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 364 of 2017 ( HDF 364 of 2017 ) be and the same is allowed ex parte in part with litigation costs against the o.ps.
The petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. The o.ps. are also directed to replace the old defective A.C. machine by a new one within one month from the date of this order.
No compensation is awarded in this case as the o.ps. attended the petitioner as and when he informed the o.ps. about defects.
Further the o.ps. are directed to pay a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Supply the copies of the order to the petitioner, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
