State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt Priti Basak vs Mr Badal Chandra Halder on 19 May, 2008
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. : 439/A/2007 DATE OF FILING:- 04.12.2007 DATE: 19.05.2008 APPELLANT : Smt. Priti Basak, W/o Sri. Nitai Basak, Prop. Of M/s. Basak Vision, 8, S.N. Bhattacharyya Road, P.O.- Berhampore, Murshidabad. RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri. Badal Chandra Halder, S/o Late Nengu Halder, 151/2, Mankumari Road, P.O.-Berhampore, Dist- Murshidabad. 2. Whirlpool of India Limited, 1, Satya Doctor Road, Martin Burn Complex, Kidderpore, Kolkata-700 023. BEFORE: HONBLE MEMBER : Sri. S. N. Basu. MEMBER : Smt. S. Majumder. FOR THE APPELLANT : Sri. Barun Prosad, Advocate. FOR THE RESPONDENTS : 1 . Sri. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate. 2. None. -ORDER- S.Majumder, Member.
This appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Murshidabad on 22.03.2006, in its case no-Con.Prot.-191/2002, wherein the Ld. Forum below has allowed the complaint on contest without any cost against the OP no-1 and exparte against the OP no-2.
The brief facts of the case of the Complainant before the Forum below were that he purchased a refrigerator having its capacity 220 Lt. from the OP no-1 on 04.04.2002. the Complainant chose a refrigerator of the same capacity with two doors alongwith locking system, but after delivery of the said good it was detected that refrigerator which was chosen by the Complainant was not delivered to him. The Complainant informed the OP no-1 regarding the matter and asked them to replace a new one but to no effect. Thereafter, finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the complaint before the Forum below praying for direction upon the OP no-1 to replace the refrigerator by the said refrigerator which was chosen by him and to pay him compensation of Rs.5,000/- and other reliefs as deem fit.
Being dissatisfied with the above-mentioned judgment the OP no-1-Appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission contending that the Ld. Forum below has failed to consider that being a dealer the Appellant-OP no-1 has no right to provide any new locking system in the refrigerator in question, which the manufacturer can only It has been further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the Complainant's-Respondent no-1's specific case was non-delivery of two doors refrigerator whereas the Complainant failed to satisfy the Forum below that he ordered for two door refrigerator to the Appellant. As the prayer was made on behalf of the Respondent no-1 for replacement of refrigerator and not for installation of locking system, the Ld. Forum has erred in passing the impugned judgment beyond the prayer of the Complainant. According to the Appellant the judgment passed by the Ld. Forum below is erroneous, unjust, improper and liable to be set aside and prayed for allowing this appeal.
On careful perusal of the record and documents, it is seen by us that the Complainant-Respondent no-1 purchased one refrigerator having its capacity 220 Lt. from the present Appellant on 04.04.2002. The Complainant has alleged that he chose the said refrigerator with two doors alongwith locking system, but after delivery of the said good it was detected that refrigerator which was chosen by him was not delivered. In this respect, we are to say that the Complainant-Respondent no-1 has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in support of his contention that he actually purchased the said refrigerator alongwith two doors and locking system facility. During hearing before this Commission, the Respondent no-1 has produced some brochures, but the same has failed to prove the case of the Complainant. The second allegation of the Complainant is that there is no locking system in the refrigerator, purchased by him, though he chose the refrigerator alongwith locking facility. In this regard also, the Complainant has failed to produce any evidence in support of his allegation. It is the settled principle of law that without furnishing any evidence against the alleged allegation, no case can be adjudicated before the Court of Law. Moreover, it is evident from the record that the Forum below has erred directed the present Appellant to replace the said refrigerator. In this context, we are of the opinion that the present Appellant is mere a dealer of the said whirlpool company's goods, it has no authority to manufacture the goods or to input any parts in the said article. The Complainant failed to explain that what model he chose to purchase and as he failed to do the same we cannot say that the said model was alongwith two doors and locking facility.
In view of our findings aforementioned, it is ordered that the appeal be allowed on contest against the Respondent no-1 and exparte against the Respondent no-2. The judgment passed by the Ld. Forum below be set aside. The office is directed to sent down the LCR to the Forum below forthwith alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S. Majumder) (S. N. Basu) Member Member