DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 383  of  2022

 

Sri Partha Sarathi Majumdar,

S/O- Late Amuly Bhusan Majumdar,

Joynagar, Dashamighat, Agartala,

West Tripura- 799001. ..............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1.M/S Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.,

A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, 

Phase – II, New Delhi -110020.

 

2.M/S.  P.S. Unique System, 

Assam Agartala Road, 

Math Chowmuhani, Agartala,

West Tripura- 799001. ….........Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Paramartha Datta,

  Sri Debabrata Dey,

  Sri Dr. Mihir Roy,

  Sri Sharlock Homes Roy,

  Learned Advocates. 

 

For the O.P. No. : None Appeared.

 

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON:   27/02/2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sri Partha Sarathi Majumdar (here-in-above  referred to as “the complainant”) set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition filed against M/S Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., New Delhi (here-in-above referred to as “the O.P.1”) and M/S. P.S. Unique System, Math Chowmuhani, Agartala (here-in-above referred to as “the O.P. 2”) .

2. The case, in brief is that the complainant purchased one washing machine from O.P. No.1 and 2 and the invoice price was Rs.12,750/- for the same. The washing machine does have a comprehensive warranty for 2 years and specific warranty for wash motor for 5 years. It has been witnessed by the complainant that the washing machine was not working due to its spin drier basket and the pulsalotor of the machine were not functioning. The motor of non functioning of the washing machine was intimated to the O.Ps by the complainant through E-mail on 25.11.2021. As per requirement of the O.P.1, the complainant also shared certain information to them. In this respect a complaint was registered with the O.P.1. Assurance was given by O.P.1 to get the washing machine repaired through service engineer. Thereafter there had been a series of communications made by the complainant by way of E-mails towards repairing of the washing machine. Service engineer visited and attended the dis-functional washing machine and spotted the defect of the wash motor. Later on the service engineer from O.P.1 came with a fresh wash motor to replace the defective part. But the same wash motor was found to be also defective and hence it could not be fitted to repair the defect of the washing  machine. The emerging development of the non repairment of the wash motor was reported back by the complainant to O.P. 1 through E-mail. But response was missing from the side of the O.P. 1. On being aggrieved so, the complainant filed this complaint petition to this Commission seeking relief of full refund of the cost of washing machine along with other relief as deem fit and proper by the Commission. Hence, this case. 

3. Despite being provided adequate opportunities to the O.P. 1 and 2 they failed to appear and contest the case. Therefore, it was ordered for proceeding of the case ex-parte against the O.P.1 and O.P.2. 

4. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit replicating the issues and grievances as being ventilated in his complaint petition. The complainant came out with the information by submitting an application along with few documents relate to communications through text messages with the O.P.1 on 15.02.2023. It transpires from the petition that the O.P.1 arranged for a substitution/replacement of the defective washing machine with a new one on 31.01.2023 but the replaced wash motor was also found to be defective. On the basis of the complaint forwarded by the complainant, the representative from the side of the O.Ps visited and inspected the replaced washing machine and according to him the machine is not workable. Consequent to that, the complainant had a series of text messages communications and receiving of reply thereof for initiating attempts on the part of the O.Ps to mend the replaced defective washing machine. But no positive action was under taken on the part of the O.Ps towards the replacement of the washing machine.

5. Now, it is to be decided that :-

(i) Whether there has been a deficiency of service against the complainant?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as being sought for?

6. We have meticulously examined the documents relied upon by the complainant and on a evaluation of the same it is observed that the O.Ps have been communicated on numerous occasions by the complainant in order to get the defective machine  repaired. The O.Ps took extra ordinary time to attempt the defective machine through their representative and to solve the issue. Though, at the latter stage, they did some initiative to replace the part that is the wash motor but such attempts of theirs turned to be futile as because the wash motor which was provided to replace the defective part found to be defective too. Subsequently, the O.Ps made a lackadaisical approach to address the issue of the washing machine. 

7. Aftermath of the case being filed by the complainant, the O.Ps made an attempt to replace the defective washing machine by a new one on 15.02.2023. but such attempt also noted to have been failed as the replaced machine was also not working due to some mechanical defects. In furtherance in such emerging situation, there had been series of communications by way of text messages between the complainant  and the O.Ps but no fruitful result came out thereafter. Taking the aforementioned points in view and on appreciation of the evidence submitted by the complainant along with documents we tend to unhesitatingly hold that the O.Ps have failed to discharge their committed/promised liability in terms of the warranty issued against the purchase of the washing machine, in question. The O.Ps miserably failed to comply the terms and condition, as exhibited, in the warranty card issued by them. Therefore, we are of the view that the O.Ps committed a deficiency of service against the complainant. We also hold that the responses or reciprocating reply provided by the O.P. in connection with the problems being reported by the complainant again and again to them is dilatory tactic adopted by the O.Ps and that caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant quite large. 

8. Therefore, we order that the O.Ps shall refund the invoice price of the washing machine along with a S.I. @ 9% P.A. from 25.11.2021(the date of first reporting of defects of the washing machine by the complainant) along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- as a cost to the complainant. The payment shall have to be made by the O.Ps within 2 months from the date of this final order and, failing which an overall interest @ 12% P.A. shall be applicable to the refund amount as well as the compensation amount.

All the points are decided accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Hence, the case is disposed of. 

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

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.