Kutchina / Bajoria Appliances Complaints & Reviews

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in

Complaint Case No. CC/8/2016

1. Mr. Nilanjan Roy
7A, Kailash Bose Street, Kolkata - 700006.
...Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and another
Dalhousie Shop, 1 and 2 Old Court House Corner, Beside Lal Bazar Police Head Quarter, P.S. - Hare Street, Kolkata - 700001.
2. Bajoria Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
20, Chinar Park, Bajoria Tower, Rajarhat, Gopalpur, P.S. - Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700157.
...Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya MEMBER

For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 13 Apr 2017
Final Order / Judgement
Order No. 9 dt. 13/04/2017

The fact of the case in brief is that complainant purchased a kitchen Chimney being Model No.Kutchina[protected] Stanza SS from o.p.no.1 on 06.09.2015 which was manufactured by o.p.2. The price of the Kutchina Chimney was 15, 800/-. Just after 20 days from the date of installation complainant noticed that one fan motor was not running. On 08.10.2015 complainant informed the matter to o.p.no.1 and as per their advice complainant lodged a complaint and docket being no. AB/70/1015 was provided by Kutchina Customer Service. Complainant demanded the replacement of the unit since fan motors are the main parts of the chimney. On 15.10.2015 there was a telephonic conversation with o.p.no.1. Then complainant came to know that the chimney motor was totally defective. Then complainant understood that it was previously known to o.p.no.2, since there was no inspection from their part till that day. Thereafter op.no.2 tried to replace the defective motor with a repaired old one. But complainant did not accept that. Since complainant did not agree with the proposal, the Zonal Manager threatened the complainant.

On 15.12.2015 at the time of redressal before CA&FBP Department, Government of West Bengal, the representative of o.p.no.2 told that which docket was generated that one was a dealer service docket and o.p.no.2 is not responsible to replace the defective goods. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case praying for direction upon o.p.s to return Rs.15, 800/ or to replace the old Kutchina kitchen chimney along with compensation of Rs.25, 000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10, 000/-.

Both o.ps contested the case by filing support w/v.

In their w/v o.p.no.1 denied all material allegation inter alia stated that the case is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. The case does not fall within the purview of CP Act since there is no gross negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Complainant filed the instant case only to harass op no.1 unnecessarily. O.p. sent an Engineer to examine the defective goods and to repair the same. But complainant did not allow the said Engineer to examine the chimney. O.p.no.1 also stated in their w/v that packed goods are come for selling to the customer and o.p.no.1 is not allowed to open the pack to examine the goods. They are the dealer of various company to sale the goods. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

In their w/v o.p.no.2 stated that they requested the complainant to allow them to check the machine and repair the same after receiving the complaint regarding the chimney. O.p.no.2 sent their mechanical expert at the residence of the complainant on 29.10.2015 and 09.11.2015. But the mechanical expert was not allowed to check the machine. Since there was no scope to investigate the machine, O.p.no.2 could not render the service in favour of the complainant. Since there was no report by technical expert the case may be dismissed with case.

Decision with reasons

We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and materials on record evidence in particular. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Kutchina Chimney from o.p.1 which was manufactured by o.p.no.2 on 06.09.2015 upon payment of Rs.15, 800/-. Only after twenty days after the date of installation one motor stopped functioning. Accordingly complainant informed the matter to o.p.no.1 and a docket being no.AB/70/1015 was generated through Kutchina Customer Service. It is also admitted fact that the technician of o.p.no.2 visited the complainant’s residence on 29.10.2015 and 09.11.2015 and the representative of o.p.no.2 offered for replacement of the defective fan motor only. Since the chimney was purchased only a few weeks back complainant did not agree with the proposal and requested them to replace the chimney with a new one. But o.p.2 did not agree with the proposal of the complainant.

At the time of hearing Ld lawyer for the o.p.2 submitted that o.p.2 wants to replace the chimney in question by a new one. Since they are offering a replacement with a new one so there is no question of deficiency in service and therefore no question of giving compensation also arises at all. Complainant in person was present at the time of hearing and he argued that he suffered from the very beginning after the purchase of the chimney i.e. 15.09.2015. At the very beginning complainant opted for replacement of the chimney in question but o.p.2 did not bother his request. If o.p.2 replaced the same at that time complainant would not have filed the instant case. Complainant suffered harassment and mental agony due to the act of o.p.2. So we find the deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.2

O.p1 is dealer of o.p.2 and they only sold the chimney in question in a sealed pack. After the chimney was delivered there is no liability of o.p.1. Rather, when complainant contacted with them after nonfunctioning of one fan motor of the chimney. They contacted with the service centre of o.p.2 and accordingly a docket no. was provided to the complainant. Hence we have not observed any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.1.

In view of above we find deficiency in service on the part of o.p.2 and as such complainant is entitled to get relief.

As a result the complaint petition succeeds.

Hence, ordered.

That the case no.08/2016 is allowed on contest against o.p.2 with cost and dismissed against o.p.1 on contest.

The o.p.2 is directed to replace the Kutchina Kitchen Chimney of the complainant by a new one of same specification within 30 days from the date of order. After the installation of new chimney o.p.2 will collect the old kitchen chimney from the complainant’s residence.

O.p.1 is also directed to give Rs.3, 000/- for compensation for harassment and mental agony caused by them along with litigation cost of Rs.1, 000/- to the complainant. O.p.2 is also directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 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.

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

[HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee]
PRESIDENT

[HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya]
MEMBER

Dear Team, no servicing done from your end till date. Product purchase 3 yr back.
Pls contact me @ [protected] at your earliest and do the needful.
Product name Kutchina Fieona SS

Complane date 23/02/2017
Docket No.[protected] Reg Mob No [protected]
No solve Problem. Again Complane 28/2/2017, 2/3/2017, 6/3/2017, 9/3/2017, and 10/3/2017

I brought a kuchina purica water purifier from sunny traders, Agartala. Also we have paid them in advance for servicing but every time they provided with bad servicing, the water leaks evrytime and today my father slipped as he entered the room. Also they don't receive our call and behaves very rudely. Please do take the matter seriously .

I am somnath biswas pH. [protected] complaint regarding cleaning of my chimney. The man which you have sent does not know how to clean and simply cleaned the chimney cover with hard scrubber and put scratch. Now tell me who will replace the cover.

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in

Complaint Case No. CC/8/2016

1. Mr. Nilanjan Roy
7A, Kailash Bose Street, Kolkata - 700006.
...Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and another
Dalhousie Shop, 1 and 2 Old Court House Corner, Beside Lal Bazar Police Head Quarter, P.S. - Hare Street, Kolkata - 700001.
2. Bajoria Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
20, Chinar Park, Bajoria Tower, Rajarhat, Gopalpur, P.S. - Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700157.
...Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya MEMBER

For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 13 Apr 2017
Final Order / Judgement
Order No. 9 dt. 13/04/2017

The fact of the case in brief is that complainant purchased a kitchen Chimney being Model No.Kutchina[protected] Stanza SS from o.p.no.1 on 06.09.2015 which was manufactured by o.p.2. The price of the Kutchina Chimney was 15, 800/-. Just after 20 days from the date of installation complainant noticed that one fan motor was not running. On 08.10.2015 complainant informed the matter to o.p.no.1 and as per their advice complainant lodged a complaint and docket being no. AB/70/1015 was provided by Kutchina Customer Service. Complainant demanded the replacement of the unit since fan motors are the main parts of the chimney. On 15.10.2015 there was a telephonic conversation with o.p.no.1. Then complainant came to know that the chimney motor was totally defective. Then complainant understood that it was previously known to o.p.no.2, since there was no inspection from their part till that day. Thereafter op.no.2 tried to replace the defective motor with a repaired old one. But complainant did not accept that. Since complainant did not agree with the proposal, the Zonal Manager threatened the complainant.

On 15.12.2015 at the time of redressal before CA&FBP Department, Government of West Bengal, the representative of o.p.no.2 told that which docket was generated that one was a dealer service docket and o.p.no.2 is not responsible to replace the defective goods. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case praying for direction upon o.p.s to return Rs.15, 800/ or to replace the old Kutchina kitchen chimney along with compensation of Rs.25, 000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10, 000/-.

Both o.ps contested the case by filing support w/v.

In their w/v o.p.no.1 denied all material allegation inter alia stated that the case is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. The case does not fall within the purview of CP Act since there is no gross negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Complainant filed the instant case only to harass op no.1 unnecessarily. O.p. sent an Engineer to examine the defective goods and to repair the same. But complainant did not allow the said Engineer to examine the chimney. O.p.no.1 also stated in their w/v that packed goods are come for selling to the customer and o.p.no.1 is not allowed to open the pack to examine the goods. They are the dealer of various company to sale the goods. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

In their w/v o.p.no.2 stated that they requested the complainant to allow them to check the machine and repair the same after receiving the complaint regarding the chimney. O.p.no.2 sent their mechanical expert at the residence of the complainant on 29.10.2015 and 09.11.2015. But the mechanical expert was not allowed to check the machine. Since there was no scope to investigate the machine, O.p.no.2 could not render the service in favour of the complainant. Since there was no report by technical expert the case may be dismissed with case.

Decision with reasons

We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and materials on record evidence in particular. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Kutchina Chimney from o.p.1 which was manufactured by o.p.no.2 on 06.09.2015 upon payment of Rs.15, 800/-. Only after twenty days after the date of installation one motor stopped functioning. Accordingly complainant informed the matter to o.p.no.1 and a docket being no.AB/70/1015 was generated through Kutchina Customer Service. It is also admitted fact that the technician of o.p.no.2 visited the complainant’s residence on 29.10.2015 and 09.11.2015 and the representative of o.p.no.2 offered for replacement of the defective fan motor only. Since the chimney was purchased only a few weeks back complainant did not agree with the proposal and requested them to replace the chimney with a new one. But o.p.2 did not agree with the proposal of the complainant.

At the time of hearing Ld lawyer for the o.p.2 submitted that o.p.2 wants to replace the chimney in question by a new one. Since they are offering a replacement with a new one so there is no question of deficiency in service and therefore no question of giving compensation also arises at all. Complainant in person was present at the time of hearing and he argued that he suffered from the very beginning after the purchase of the chimney i.e. 15.09.2015. At the very beginning complainant opted for replacement of the chimney in question but o.p.2 did not bother his request. If o.p.2 replaced the same at that time complainant would not have filed the instant case. Complainant suffered harassment and mental agony due to the act of o.p.2. So we find the deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.2

O.p1 is dealer of o.p.2 and they only sold the chimney in question in a sealed pack. After the chimney was delivered there is no liability of o.p.1. Rather, when complainant contacted with them after nonfunctioning of one fan motor of the chimney. They contacted with the service centre of o.p.2 and accordingly a docket no. was provided to the complainant. Hence we have not observed any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.1.

In view of above we find deficiency in service on the part of o.p.2 and as such complainant is entitled to get relief.

As a result the complaint petition succeeds.

Hence, ordered.

That the case no.08/2016 is allowed on contest against o.p.2 with cost and dismissed against o.p.1 on contest.

The o.p.2 is directed to replace the Kutchina Kitchen Chimney of the complainant by a new one of same specification within 30 days from the date of order. After the installation of new chimney o.p.2 will collect the old kitchen chimney from the complainant’s residence.

O.p.1 is also directed to give Rs.3, 000/- for compensation for harassment and mental agony caused by them along with litigation cost of Rs.1, 000/- to the complainant. O.p.2 is also directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 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.

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

[HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee]
PRESIDENT

[HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya]
MEMBER

Its going to be around 1 year of buying the product but there has been no contact from the company side for servicing. Inspite of calling them for product servicing there has been no response from the company side.

From February 1st week i had contacted the kutchina customer care for send me a technician for repair my Chimney but still now noone came and they always said whenever i called that within 72 hours technician will contact me...please help me

I have a smartec kutchina chimney at my kitchen. I have an AMC with kutchina from 20/7/2016. I have booked for servicing on 23/12/2016. My booking no is[protected]. But after 45 days there is no response from kutchina. I have called so many times to customer care agents. But servicing not done till date.My mob no [protected].

Kutchina / Bajoria Appliances — Large hob is not activating

Kutchina hobs. Model... HB 3BL Excell with three hobs.

Installed yesterday, couldn't able to activate the main Job.

Need your assistance

P. K. Borah
House No. 25A, 4th byelane, Nobajyoti Nagar, besides Kalakhetra, Panjabari, Guwahati.. 781037

I am not sure if this will be read by some responsible person in the company. Still, I am writing this because I am so fed up with your agents in Kolkata, e.g., Ace Marketing of 39, Sukanta Park, Kolkata-101.
I bought the model STANZA SS in November, 2012 and entered into a service contract with them. Their service has been extremely unsatisfactory throughout, to say the least. When they do not turn up for servicing, we have to make umpteen number of calls which go unanswered.
The machine has not been serviced for a long time and is gathering oil deposits. Soon it may stop functioning.
Will anyone kindly look into this and have the needful done immediately?
Dipak Sen Gupta
IA-144, Salt Lake, Sector III,
Kolkata-700 097
Cell:[protected]
Landline: 2335 8714
email : [protected]@gmail.com

Purchased a Hub but since last 15 days I am asking for the Rings affixed in Burner but not getting the same .Service center simply postponing dates

Having a worst experience in after sales service; after repeated complaint to "Bajoria Appliances Pvt.Ltd., Guwahati-781007" no one has turned up to repair my chimney which is lying ideally for a long time.If my complaint is not attended within 21.12.16 than I will have to approach the consumer forum.