In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.405/2012.
1) Sri Shyamal Gond,
Flat No.E, 3rd Floor, Anurag Abasan,
6/1, Olai Chandi Road, P.S. Tallah, Kolkata-37. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Whirlpool India Ltd.
Santiniketan Building,
8, Camac Street, 9th Floor, Room No.4,
P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-17. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 10 Dated 27-09-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant purchased a washing machine (7.2 kg) x LA 72 ft. of Whirlpool Co. from Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. 20, Old Court House Street, Kolkata-1. The price of the said machine was Rs.8900/-. The serial no. was DNB 104211197 and model no.11820.
On 14.11.10 a defect occurred in respect of water inlet of the said machine. Complainant lodged a complain being complain no. KL-1110010287, code no.701 dt.14.11.10. But the service centre did not respond to his complain. Complainant again lodged complain on 17.11.10 – complain no.KL-0911003171 and on 6.9.11 – complain no.KL 0911005348 code no.790.
On 10.9.11 one Mr. Abhijit Mondal (Engineer, Service Centre) of the said company attended the house of the complainant and said that if the parts for which the problem occurred would be available in their office, he would bring and set up the same. But nothing has been done.
After a few days on 21.9.11 the wash lid and link filter of the machine broke and the machine went fully out of order and became fully useless. Complainant at once lodged complain by telephone vide complain no.KL-0911011250-code no.777, dt.21.9.11. But nothing was done from their end. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. 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. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.p. had sufficient deficiency in service being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to refund the purchase value of Rs.8900/- (Rupees eight thousand nine hundred) only and is further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
The complainant is further directed to return the machine in question within 15 days from this date of entire realization of the amount as aforesaid.
