[Resolved]  Kutchina / Bajoria Appliances — Docket no.[protected] not attended

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