State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Proprietor, Sen Automobiles (Dealer), ... vs Prodip Kumar Dubey & Others on 21 May, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/618/2010 (Arisen out of judgement dt. 29.9.10 of DCDRF, Burdwan in D.F.Case No. 130/2008) DATE OF FILING : 01.11.2010 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 21.05.2013 APPELLANTS 1. Proprietor Sen Automobiles (Dealer) Matrix E Bike Shanti Niwas (Besides Income Tax Office) G.T.Road (W), Asansol-713 304. 2. Prabir Kumar Sen AS-2 (Modified), House No. 11 Kalyanpur Housing Asansol-713 304. RESPONDENTS 1. Prodip Kumar Dubey Quarter No. KS 75/1 & 2 Masjid Road P.O.Burnpur, Dist. Burdwan Pin-713 347. 2. Manager, Euro II Services 1/2A, Beni Nandan Street, Bhowanipur Kolkata-700 025. 3, In Charge R.K.Rim Pvt. Ltd. 2-3, Bittu Industrial Estate Golani Complex, Walir Vasai Road (East) Thane-401 208. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Md. Mansoor Alam, Ld. Advocate Ms. Syeda Shanur Ali, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 29.9.10 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muchipara, Burdwan, in D.F.Case No. 130/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint on contest against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed the same against the OP Nos. 3 & 4 thereby directing the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 41,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to proceed as per law.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant purchased a Super Matrix E-Bike for a consideration of Rs. 35,500/- from the show-room of the OP No. 1 and on the request of the complainant the brake-light and horn at the right-hand side of the E-Bike was altered by the OP No. 1. As the complainant was a handicapped person with his left hand amputated from the wrist, the aforesaid alteration was necessary so as to enable the complainant to drive the bike with the help of one hand.
According to the complainant, thereafter several problems developed in the E-Bike and the complainant attended the OPs show-room for the purpose of mending the defects and though the OP No. 1 did some minor repair works, but the defects were not cured. In spite of several visits t the show-room of the OP No. 1 for the purpose of removing the defects, the same remained as before and the complainant was informed by the OP No. 1 that the defects were of manufacturing defects and the OP No. 1 had nothing to do with the same. The complainant requested the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to refund the consideration money and though the OP Nos. 1 & 2 initially agreed to refund, but ultimately they refused to refund any amount of the consideration money to the complainant and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
The OP Nos. 1, 2,3 & 4 contested the case by filing separate written versions thereby denying and disputing all the material allegations made in the petition of complaint.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that from the materials on record it has become evident that there was no warranty in the bile so purchased by the complainant and that there was also no material on record for a presumption that the bike suffered from manufacturing defects. According to the Ld. District Forum, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are solely responsible for the defects which persisted with the bike in spite of the fact that the complainant attended the show-room of the OP No. 1 for the purpose of repairing the same, but with no effect and, accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant and against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 thereby exonerating the OP Nos. 3 & 4.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
Decisions cited on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent :
1. 1996
WBLR (CPNC) 31
2. 1996 WBLR (CPSC) 209
3. 1996 WBLR (CPSC) 212
4. 1996 WBLR (CPSC) 54 DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent that in this case it is an admitted position that soon after the purchase the E-Bike developed several problems and in spite of attending the show-room of the OP No. 1, the defects remained as it were and ultimately, when there was no response from the OP Nos. 1 & 2, the complainant had to ask for refund of the consideration money which the Ops refused and finding no other alternative the complainant had to institute the Consumer Complaint and the Ld. District Forum having rightly adjudged the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to be responsible for the refund of the money has passed the impugned judgement, which is very much sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, the Ld. District Forum has passed a very well reasoned and well-written judgement, which should be confirmed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant/Respondent has put forward a case to the effect that soon after purchase of the bike it persisted with constant problems, which were not mended properly at the instance of the OP Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant had no other alternative but to ask for refund of the consideration money.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 refused to make refund and hence, the petition of complaint. The Ops contested the case by filing separate written versions thereby denying and disputing the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending, inter alia, that there was no deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops and the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that it is an admitted position that at the instance of the complainant the alterations were made in the bike in question and it is also an admitted position that there was no warranty in respect of the bike in question so purchased by the complainant and that there is also no experts opinion as regards defects in the bike in question. If that be the position and more so, when it is an admitted position that at the instance of the Complainant/Respondent several alterations were made in the bike in question, we do not think that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are responsible for the defects as alleged by the complainant and the observations made by the Ld. District Forum so far as it relates to holding the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to be deficient in service and liable to refund the consideration money appears to be not at all justified. We have also considered the several decisions cited on behalf of the Complainant/Respondents. But since the facts and circumstances of those decisions are quite different from the instant one, the principles laid down in those decisions are not applicable to the instant case. Having considered the present Appeal in the light of above discussions we find merit in the present Appeal, which should be allowed. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement stands set aside. Consequently, the petition of complaint stands dismissed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT