videocon fridge

We have purchased a Videocon double door fridge from next showroom, Mumbai on 25th June 2008. After 2nd day of purchase we found it was not cooling properly but we thought it might be taking time because it was new.
Now we have shifted to Delhi & after 3months of purchase now the fridge is not at all cooling, regarding this we already had put in number of complaints with their service center.
According to their people there was a problem in compressor which they opened and filled gas & all but again after a day it wasn't working. After calling them again several times another service engineer visited us and he gave us a technical explanation for the same to which we don't understand and he continued on saying it will be rectified after cleaning and fixing this problem. But entire exercise was of no use and wastage of time. As we till date have a fridge which in no working condition at all even though its under Warranty. And god knows what Videocon people will do next.

It is too much mental tension for us as family & finally we requested Videocon people to replace the fridge with a new one. Because it is under warranty or immediately resolve the technical fault in our present fridge as our day to day activity & family life is affected with not having a workable fridge in the house.

We request u to please help us in finding a solution for this problem.
«1

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited November 2008
    Hi Anjnii,
    I have gone through your complaint, but we need some information from your side, like all the bill details, modal details to communicate with the parent company.

    Note: We need your good experience also. Kindly share with us.

    Regards
    Admin
  • anjnianjni Junior Member
    edited November 2008
    Bill No:- 16241, Next Retail India Ltd, Kandivali, Mumbai

    Product Code No:- Ref:- D240BRG, 230Ltrs. ,

    Service Center No:-
    Delhi:- 011-39404040

    Complaint No:- on 17-09-08 - 5a0080809170006
    Complaint No:-on 6-11-08:- 5a0080811010018

    Bal Ganesh : -09310680682(South division):- when we spoke to him he said he would replace the fridge but after this conversation his phone is not reachable till date.

    Rajendra: - Delhi coordinator service in charge: - 09310680609:- I called cutomer care again and they gave me Mr. Rajendra's No. when i told him to replace the fridge then he said that would not be possible and instead said that he would provide a stand by fridge and keep our fridge under observation.

    still as of today these people have yet not responded to our complaint.

    Videocon Industries Ltd.
    14 Kms Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road,
    Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan,
    Dist. Aurangabad - 431 105 (India)
  • anjnianjni Junior Member
    edited November 2008
    Please find a copy of the bill.

    rgds,
    anjni
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited November 2008
    Hi Anjni,

    Thanks for the details. We have send the details to the parent company, Kindlly wait for 2-3 days.
    If they will still not response you then kindly contact us again.

    Thanks


    PS: We already have a lot of complaints for Videocon fridges from Noida, Mumbai, Pune, Surat and New Delhi. Looks like its becoming a norm for videocon to sell substandard goods.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited December 2008
    Hi Anjani,
    Before going to Consumer Court you need to do some basic formality. Send a notice with the registered post (keep the slip) regarding your problems and mention all the complaint no. in the notice which you have registered with Videocon Customer Care also mention the job sheet no and attached all the billing details.
    Chairman and Managing Director,
    Videocon Industries Ltd.
    41 Kms Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road,
    Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan,
    Dist. Aurangabad - 421105 (India)
    Thanks
    Note: Kindly share the notice with us to help the other consumers and also share your good experience with other consumer to help them to choose the right product and services.
  • anjnianjni Junior Member
    edited December 2008
    To issue the notice, should we hire a professional lawyer or should we personally send it?

    Is there any specific format for notice?

    Please suggest.

    Thank you very much for your cooperation.

    Rgds,

    Anjni
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited December 2008
    Hi Anjni,
    No need to hire any professional, just mention your complaints, job sheet no, bill details and what you want from the parent company.
    Note: Send the notice through registered post only.
    *Share your good experience with us and other consumer
  • anjnianjni Junior Member
    edited December 2008
    I have posted the notice today, through India post

    No:-– RL A 5982

    Pls let me know further steps.

    Rgds,
    Anjni
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited December 2008
    Hi Anjni,
    Wait for at least 15-20 days, they will surly help you out. Now we have proper proof that we also intimate the parent company via registered post.

    Note: Kindly mail us the copy at admin@consumercourt.in

    Mail us your good experience and help other to choose the best product.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited December 2008
    Dated: 10-12-08
    To,
    The Chairman and Managing Director
    Videocon Industries Ltd.
    14 Kms Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road,
    Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan,
    Dist. Aurangabad - 431 105 (India)
    SUB: NOTICE BEFORE FILING CONSUMER COMPLAINT
    Dear Sir,
    We have purchased a Videocon refrigerator on 25th June 2008 from Mumbai (Bill no-16241, Next
    Retail India Ltd, Kandivali, Mumbai).
    The fridge is under warranty, the machine started showing problems in September 2008 and I have
    contacted your customer care on this several times. Technical experts from your company have made
    four visits to my residence in Delhi where the refrigerator is currently located. In the second visit,
    they changed some gas in the machine and then it started working fine but only for two days and
    showed the same problem of non-cooling after that.
    Complaint No: - on 17-09-08 - 5a0080809170006
    Complaint No: - on 6-11-08:- 5a0080811010018
    In this regard we have also contacted to your 'Area coordinator' in Delhi - Mr. Balganesh and Mr.
    Rajendar. They kept giving false promises that since the machine is not working properly even after
    repairing, they would replace it with a new one in a few days time.
    However, nothing positive has been done until now although this process has started since September
    2008.
    This is a notice to notify you of a time period of 15-25 days from 13-12-08, by which either a
    replacement of the product or refund of full amount with 10% interest. Else we will file a
    complaint with the Consumer Court.
    And the consumer complaint will be at your cost and expenses, and we will seek compensation
    for the mental agony caused due to your deficiency in services.
    Yours truly,
    Anjni Gupta
    C/o Siddiqui’s, 29D/3B,
    Near Bhagwati Hospital, Leela Hauz Road
    (old Desu Road)Ward No-1, Mehrauli, New Delhi-30
    Encl: - Copy of bill
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited December 2008
    Hi Anjani,

    Have you heard from Videocon yet? If not please go down to your nearest consumer court brance and file a complaint there... You would need to spend Rs100 for a postal order to attach with the complaint as the fees of the consumer court. After you file your complaint you will be given a date for hearing and summons will be served to Videocon to furnish a reply in the case to put farward their part of the story.

    Please do not hire any lawyer as you can represent yourself and save that money but on the other hand if you do hire a lawyer although I wont recomend you to do so... You can claim the legal expenses from the company.

    Make sure you ask for a hefty compensation and not delaty this matter any more as by the looks of it it doesnt look like videocon is in a mood to listen to your complaints and/or do something about it.

    Do keep us posted on whats going.

    Regards
    Admin
    www.consumercourt.in
  • anjnianjni Junior Member
    edited December 2008
    Till date no responce has come.

    Please give me nearest consumer court address, We are staying in Mehrauli.

    let me know what all documents they want from us.

    rgds,
    anjni
  • anjnianjni Junior Member
    edited December 2008
    Today we tried to contact Videocon again to resolve the problem but their representative
    Mr. Upadhya- 09312243709 said “do whatever you like and I don't care about the consumer court”.

    He used un-parliamentary language.

    This has hurt my sentiments more and I doubt whether this vendor take you people seriously.

    I request you to kindly get me compensation on the following grounds amounting to Rs. 50, 00,000.00

    Although this is not going to compensate my lost of self respect & sentiments and my respect in front of my in-laws. If it was with your sister/daughter, kindly check her sentiments that’s what I told Mr. Upadhya.

    I am very much hurt , more over I am new joining in my company thus I am not able to take leave which will mean financial loss as well as hamper my career which is un-compensable in any financial form.

    With hopes and expectations

    Regards,
    Anjni
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited December 2008
    Hello,

    If they are not taking any action then we need to file a complaint against the Videocon, kindly provide us your current contact details for further proceedings.

    Thanks
  • anjnianjni Junior Member
    edited December 2008
    In continuity to my previous correspondence I wish to inform you that I was contacted by Videocon representative Mr. Raja Paul that they are willing to change my fridge.

    Should i get agree to take replacement of the fridge or should i fight?

    You can imagine my situation, now I really want to teach a lesson to them.

    Please suggest what should be done now.

    Further attaching a copy of my mail to Videocon today.

    Thanks.
    Anjni Gupta
    C/o Siddiqui's, 29D/3B,
    Near Bhagwati Hospital, Leela Hauz Road
    (old Desu Road)Ward No-1, Mehrauli, New Delhi-30
    # 09868951453, 09868332030,
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited December 2008
    Congratulation Anjani,
    Your effort is really appreciable, if every INDIAN consumer act like you then no one needs to knock the consumer court. Our main purpose is solved now, so let us close this issue here.

    Note: Other INDIAN consumer needs your help to chose the right product or service so kindly send us at reviews on any product or service as much as you can.
    We are waiting for your reply.
    Thanks,
    Admin
  • anjnianjni Junior Member
    edited January 2009
    Dear sir/madam,

    It’s been almost 20days but still I have not received any replacement.

    Everyday I am calling Videocon people but they just say it’s in process.

    Just wanted to know is there any treatment for this type of companies?

    They don't value others timing and money.

    In future I will never recommend any Videocon products to anybody.

    Rgds,
    Anjni
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited January 2009
    Hello,

    What exactly they are saying. Kindly tell us in detail manner. And ask them the final date.

    Thanks
  • anjnianjni Junior Member
    edited January 2009
    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Thank you very much for your guidance.

    Finally I received the replacement yesterday.

    Rgds,
    Anjni Gupta
  • edited June 2009
    dear sir,i have recently purcase one LG AC FROM GURU JI ELECTRONICS, G12 A,PLOT NO
    2362/1 , MAHARAJA COMPLEX, PATEL ROAD, NEW DELHI 110008, PH: 25703218,25703281, E
    MAIL: gurujielectronics@yahoo.co.in, ON DATED 13 APRILLG MODEL NO LWA 5FW2DD1 WINDOW
    AC 1.5 TON, WHICH I HAVE TAKEN THE RECIEPT AND PAIDRS 16000/ ,BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO
    OUT OF CITY , THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY WILL INSTALLED THE AC , WHEN I RETURNED ON 16
    APRIL 2009 , I WAS SHOKED TO SEE THT THEY HAVE CHANGED THE MODEL AND WHEN I CONTACT
    THEM REGARDING THAT THEY TOLD ME AFTER INSTALLATION THEYCANNOT CHANGE IT, AND TOLD
    ME U CAN DO WHAT EVERU LIKE , AND SPEEKING VULGAR LANGUAGE,NOW PL.LET ME KNOW WHAT
    TO DOVIKAAS SHARMA9313080581Dear admin! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID
    now!
  • edited August 2009
    this is srijata ghosh.
    i m in a serious problem.There is a company called Club Mahindra holidays...me and my husband Arkadev Chakraborty has given 25000 to that company for the holiday.We have told after visiting that place we will take the decision weather we will go for membership or not...repeatedly we have told the sales person Parvinder and his manager before giving the credit card for swaping for the 2 conditions.
    1. EMI will should start after our tour i.e 2nd dec.
    2. 15000 cash back.They have told that 15000 we will get cash back after 1 month and EMI of the membership will start from after our holidays....

    But now they are saying we wont get the cash back 15000 and also we cant go for the holiday unless we will start EMI from nxt month wgere as our holiday is for 2nd December.
    it means my 25000 has forfeited.
    sales person and the managers of City center(kolkata) retail brunch is having big attitude problem and they dont know how to treat customers...

    they are shouting on us and behaved rudely with me..

    please help me out...we are newly married couple...we dont have n e documents so that we can go for legal action....

    please help us out....

    regards,
    srijata ghosh and arkadev chakraborty
  • edited September 2009
    Hi,
    This is a complaint regarding a Videocon 230 ltrs fridge number
    VAL233SH that I bought on 5th of this month, Since the first days I have
    been having problems wth it wth the cooling. I have tried so many times
    on your customer care and they have always been very rude to me. But
    nothing had happned.Could you please contct me and please help me chnge
    the fridge. My complaint numbers are as follows: GHA0909090405 and
    GHA1609090536.
    A first and most probably the last customer of videcon.


    Thanks & Regards,
    Pankaj Tripathi
    Mobile : +91- 9990608004.
    E-mail : pankaj.tripathi@tecnovate.co.in
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Meda Venkateswara Rao, s/o.Raghupathi, age: 37 years, occu:

    Business, r/o.11-10-709/3A, Burhanpuram, Khammam



    …Complainant

    Vs


    1. Sri Venkata Sai Electronics, D.No.9-5-10/1, near Muncipal office,

    Kasba bazaar, Khammam, rep. By its prop. S.Bhasker



    2. Videocon Industries Ltd., 14th KM stone, Auangabad-Paithan road,

    Chitegaon Aurangabad-431105.



    …Opposite parties.



    This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant; Notice of opposite parties No.1 and 2 served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-



    ORDER





    1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Videocon Refrigerator Model No. 220 WD DX from the opposite party No.1 on 23-4-2007 by paying an amount of Rs.9,400/- vide receipt No.13, after its’ purchase, worked properly for a period of 11 months and subsequently the compressor of the refrigerator started giving troubles, immediately the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, and handed over the refrigerator for rectification of defects, the opposite party No.1 promised to replace the same with new one and after lapse of 3 months, the opposite party No.1 returned the refrigerator, and after 4 months, the same problem has arisen. As such the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested to rectify the defects. But they did not respond to the requests of the complainant and vexed with the attitude of the opposite party No.1, the complainant logged a complaint with the opposite party No.2 through toll free No.18004194040.


    In the month of April, 2009, the mechanics of the opposite party No.1 inspected the refrigerator, found that the compressor is not working and stated that he will replace the compressor. But they failed to replace, the complainant again informed to the opposite party No.1 and demanded to replace the defective refrigerator. But the opposite party No.1 did not provide any service to the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service. As such he approached the forum and prayed to direct the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator with new one and to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages.

    2. Along with the complaint, an affidavit is filed and also filed original cash receipt dt,23-4-2007 for Rs.10,400/- issued by opposite party No.1, Original copy of owners manual with warranty.

    3. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties failed to appear before the forum and failed to file any counter.

    4. In view of the averments of the complaint, now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief or not?





    Point:

    5. As seen from the averments of the complaint, the complainant purchased Videocon refrigerator Model No. 220 WD DX from the opposite party No.1 on 23-4-2007 by paying an amount of Rs.9,400/- vide receipt No.13 and after 11 months, the compressor of the refrigerator has been giving troubles and the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for rectification of defects and handed over the refrigerator with them and the same was returned after rectification and after lapse of 4 months the same problem arisen in the refrigerator, then the complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 and logged a complaint. Accordingly, the mechanic of opposite party No.2 attended for repairs and observed that the compressor of the fridge was not working properly, as such he stated that they will replace the compressor with new one but failed to do so. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in rendering proper service to the complainant, and in support of his case, the complainant filed cash memo, dt.23-4-2007 for Rs.10,400/- and also filed owners manual.


    As per conditions of the owners’ manual, the opposite parties had given 6 years warranty from the date of purchase and as per page No.13 of owners’ manual, “the product (excluding compressor) is warranted against manufacturing defects of parts and components for a period of 12 months”. It is clear that there is a liability on the part of opposite parties against manufacturing defects within the period of warranty. As such we feel that it as a fit case to fasten the liability on the part of opposite parties. As such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

    6. In the result, the C.C. is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to replace the defective parts in Videocon refrigerator Model No.220 WD DX with new parts as per the conditions of the warranty and further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the litigation.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Fives Stein India Projects Pvt. Ltd.,

    8/1, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071.
    Complainant



    ---Verses---

    1) M/s Coolant,

    141/1, Jodhpur Park, Kolkata-700068.



    2) M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd.,

    164/1, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata-700064.
    Opposite Party









    Complainant M/s. Stein Heurty India Projects Pvt. Ltd. by filing a Petition on 30.01.2008 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps – M/s. Coolant & M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. has prayed for passing an Order directing the O.Ps to repay the balance amount of Rs. 69,000.00 along with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs. 1 lac and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000.00 against the O.Ps .

    The fact of the case, in short, is that for the purposeof official use the Petitioner-Company approached the O.P. No. 1 for inspection and quotation in respect of installation of 4 cassette type split air-conditioner machines and accordingly one quotation dated 25.01.2007 has been issued by the O.P. No. 1. Thereafter O.P. No. 2, the manufacturer of air-condition machine also sent one quotation dated 29.01.2007 wherein they demanded Rs. 2,79,600.00 as cost of 4 cassette type split (AC) machine and also requested the Petitioner-Company to place order through their authorized agent O.P. No. 1.


    As per the direction of O.P. No. 2 the Complainant-Company issued one purchase order dated 31.01.2007 to O.P. No. 1 and the Complainant agreed to pay Rs. 2,76,000.00 as cost of 4 cassette type split (AC) machine and Rs. 10,000.00 of installation charge. Expected date of delivery was 08.02.2007 and the Petitioner agreed to pay 50% at the time of delivery. And accordingly the Complainant paid Rs. 1,38,000.00 by Cheque No. 419674 dated 01.02.2007 to O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. acknowledged the same.. But, even inspite of payment of 50% O.P. failed to deliver those 4 machines in time and thereafter by a letter dated 22.02.2007 the Complainant cancelled the order and requested to refund the advance payment of Rs. 1,38,000.00

    O.P. No. 1 on 26.03.2007 intimated that due to non-supply of 3 AC machines by Videocon they failed to install the machine in time and they could delivery only one machine at the basement of the Petitioner-Company. O.P. No. 2 also intimated that O.P. No. 2 assured to refund the entire amount subject to return of the said delivered machine, and therefore, O.P. No. 2 requested the Petitioner to ;release the unused AC machine at the earliest, and the one AC machine supplied by the O.P. No. 1 was not used at the basement of the Petitioner-Company and it was lying there in packed and sealed condition. The O.P. No. 1 in their letter dated 04.05.2007 further intimated that the manufacturer O.P. No. 2 agreed to return the entire amount after deducting 10% for lifting charges of the machine. The Petitioner strongly denied because in the previous letter dated 26.03.2007 the O.P. No. 1 never demanded any amount for lifting charges of the machine nor even claimed 10% deduction from the Petitioner-Co.


    In response to the letter of the Petitioner dated 14.06.2007 O.P. No. 1 issued one Cheque of Rs. 69,000.00 dated 03.07.2007 as 5o% of the paid amount and further agreed to refund the balance after getting payment from Vidiocon Industries Ltd. And thereafter O.P. No. 1 assured over telephone for making payment of balance of Rs. 69,000.00 but they have not paid the same and the Petitioner sent letters on 27.07.2007, 17.08.2007 to the O.Ps with a request to return back the machines from their office and refund the balance amount of Rs. 69,000.00. O.P. No. 2 on 13.09.2007 sent their machine for the first time for lifting the same, and surprisingly it was found by the Petitioner that after opening the sealed boxes and inspecting the machine it was found that some spare-parts like Power PCB, Power Cord and remote hand-set were missing..


    The sealed box was never opened earlier and for the first time opened and inspected by the O.P. No. 2 and the Petitioner believe that in order to deprive the legitimate claim of Rs. 69,000.00 the O.Ps raised some illegal and false allegation against the Petitioner and the Petitioner accordingly on 14.09.2007 by a letter to the O.Ps denied the allegations of missing parts of the machines. But even inspite of the negotiations and correspondences through letters the O.Ps have not returned Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner and so the Petitioner has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.



    Decisions with reasons :

    It appears on perusal of the records that the case was filed on 15.02.2008 and notices were sent to the O.Ps and it appears on perusal of Order No. 5 dated 28.05.2008 that even inspite of service of notices the O.Ps have not appeared to contest this case. Hence the case is heard ex parte.

    It is the specific case of the Complainant that for the purpose of official use they booked 4 cassette type split AC machines at Rs. 2,79,600.00 and out of it they paid Rs. 1,38,000.00 as 50% with the agreement to pay rest 50% at the time of delivery of 4 machines. One machine was delivered and the rest 3 were not delivered and even the one machine which was delivered was not used by the Petitioner which was kept at the basement of the Petitioner-Co. and subsequently some parts of the delivered one machine were found missing.

    And the O.Ps denied to refund Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner and so the Petitioner has filed this case. The quotation of the 4 AC machines given by the O.P. No. 1 is Annexure –A dated 25.01.2007 and date of delivery agreed to Annexure-A is ¾ days approximately from the date of receiving the Order. Warranty Period was 12 months, Free Service 12 months, Annexure-B is the offer letter for the cassette type split AC machine showing unit price of each mchine at Rs. 69,000.00 and 4 machines Rs. 2,79,600.00 and the date of delivery was within one to two weeks after getting official order and validity of order is 30 days from the date of offer, Annexure-C.


    His purchase order for 4 machines at Rs. 2,76,000.00 and unit price of each machine at Rs. 69,000.00. The Petitioner paid Rs. 1,38,000.00 as 50% of Rs. 2,76,000.00 vide Annexure-D. As the O.P. No. 1 failed to supply 4 machines as per agreement and inspite of repeated demands the Complainant cancelled the Order vide Annexure-E. Through Annexure-F the O.P. No. 1 informed the Complainant that due to non-supply of AC machines b7y O.P. No. 2 they failed to comply with the terms of agreement and accordingly they could not supply 3 other AC machines.


    The O.P. No. 1 in its letter dated 04.05.2007 Annexure-G intimated the manufacturer, i.e., O.P. No. 2 who agreed to refund the amount after deducting 10% lifting charge of the machine. Petitioner-Company did not agree and it disputed as to the contents of the Annexure-G and its letter, marked Annexure-‘H’. In response to the Petitioners letter dated 14.06.2007, Annexure-H O.P. No. 1 gave a reply on 03.07.2007 Annexure-I. The O.P. No. 1 issued a cheque for Rs. 69,000.00 as partial refund of Rs. 1,38,000.00 but the O.Ps have not yet refunded the Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner. Service Report about alleged missing of Power PCB, Power Cord, Remote hand-set etc. is found from Annexure-M. The Petitioner challenged the veracity of the contents of such missing of spare-parts of the machine and their protest letter dated 14.09.2007, marked Annexure-N.

    We have also perused the Evidence on Oath of the Petitioner sworn in by Mr. S. L. Mathur, Managing Director of Petitioner-Company wherein he has stated all about the contents made out in the Petition of Complaint and the contents are corroborated by his evidence on Oath.

    It may apparently appear to us that the AC machines when purchased by the Petitioner for his official use it may be for commercial purpose and accordingly he may not be treated as a consumer as provided under Section 2(d) under the C.P. Act. But in this respect Ld. Lawyer for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to a decision reported in 2005-Vol-I CPJ Page 27Harsolia Motors-vs-National Insurance Co.

    Relevant observation in this regard is noted as below : “If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such illustration would be that a manufacturer who is producing one product ‘a’, for such production he may be required to purchase articles, which may be raw materials, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose. As against this same manufacturer if he purchases a refrigerator, a television or an air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even in his office it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for this purpose he is entitled to approach to the Consumer Forum under the Act”.

    In view of the above discussion and considering the facts, circumstances. evidence both on oath and documentary coupled with legal position we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

    Hence

    ordered

    that the Petition of Complaint is allowed ex parte against the O.Ps No. 1 & 2. O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to return the amount of Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner positively within 30 days from the date of communication of this Order. The Petitioner do also get an award of Rs. 15,000.00 as compensation and Rs, 3,000.00 as litigation cost and the O.Ps No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay grand total of Rs. 87,000.00 to the Petitioner within 30 days from the date of communication this Order failing which it will carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization of the entire amount. Fees paid are correct. Supply copy of this Order to the Complainant on payment of prescribed fees.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    1) Fives Stein India Projects Pvt. Ltd.,

    8/1, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071.
    Complainant



    ---Verses---

    1) M/s Coolant,

    141/1, Jodhpur Park, Kolkata-700068.



    2) M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd.,

    164/1, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata-700064.
    Opposite Party










    Complainant M/s. Stein Heurty India Projects Pvt. Ltd. by filing a Petition on 30.01.2008 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps – M/s. Coolant & M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. has prayed for passing an Order directing the O.Ps to repay the balance amount of Rs. 69,000.00 along with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs. 1 lac and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000.00 against the O.Ps .

    The fact of the case, in short, is that for the purposeof official use the Petitioner-Company approached the O.P. No. 1 for inspection and quotation in respect of installation of 4 cassette type split air-conditioner machines and accordingly one quotation dated 25.01.2007 has been issued by the O.P. No. 1. Thereafter O.P. No. 2, the manufacturer of air-condition machine also sent one quotation dated 29.01.2007 wherein they demanded Rs. 2,79,600.00 as cost of 4 cassette type split (AC) machine and also requested the Petitioner-Company to place order through their authorized agent O.P. No. 1. As per the direction of O.P. No. 2 the Complainant-Company issued one purchase order dated 31.01.2007 to O.P. No. 1 and the Complainant agreed to pay Rs. 2,76,000.00 as cost of 4 cassette type split (AC) machine and Rs. 10,000.00 of installation charge.


    Expected date of delivery was 08.02.2007 and the Petitioner agreed to pay 50% at the time of delivery. And accordingly the Complainant paid Rs. 1,38,000.00 by Cheque No. 419674 dated 01.02.2007 to O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. acknowledged the same.. But, even inspite of payment of 50% O.P. failed to deliver those 4 machines in time and thereafter by a letter dated 22.02.2007 the Complainant cancelled the order and requested to refund the advance payment of Rs. 1,38,000.00

    O.P. No. 1 on 26.03.2007 intimated that due to non-supply of 3 AC machines by Videocon they failed to install the machine in time and they could delivery only one machine at the basement of the Petitioner-Company. O.P. No. 2 also intimated that O.P. No. 2 assured to refund the entire amount subject to return of the said delivered machine, and therefore, O.P. No. 2 requested the Petitioner to ;release the unused AC machine at the earliest, and the one AC machine supplied by the O.P. No. 1 was not used at the basement of the Petitioner-Company and it was lying there in packed and sealed condition.



    The O.P. No. 1 in their letter dated 04.05.2007 further intimated that the manufacturer O.P. No. 2 agreed to return the entire amount after deducting 10% for lifting charges of the machine. The Petitioner strongly denied because in the previous letter dated 26.03.2007 the O.P. No. 1 never demanded any amount for lifting charges of the machine nor even claimed 10% deduction from the Petitioner-Co. In response to the letter of the Petitioner dated 14.06.2007 O.P. No. 1 issued one Cheque of Rs. 69,000.00 dated 03.07.2007 as 5o% of the paid amount and further agreed to refund the balance after getting payment from Vidiocon Industries Ltd.



    And thereafter O.P. No. 1 assured over telephone for making payment of balance of Rs. 69,000.00 but they have not paid the same and the Petitioner sent letters on 27.07.2007, 17.08.2007 to the O.Ps with a request to return back the machines from their office and refund the balance amount of Rs. 69,000.00. O.P. No. 2 on 13.09.2007 sent their machine for the first time for lifting the same, and surprisingly it was found by the Petitioner that after opening the sealed boxes and inspecting the machine it was found that some spare-parts like Power PCB, Power Cord and remote hand-set were missing..


    The sealed box was never opened earlier and for the first time opened and inspected by the O.P. No. 2 and the Petitioner believe that in order to deprive the legitimate claim of Rs. 69,000.00 the O.Ps raised some illegal and false allegation against the Petitioner and the Petitioner accordingly on 14.09.2007 by a letter to the O.Ps denied the allegations of missing parts of the machines. But even inspite of the negotiations and correspondences through letters the O.Ps have not returned Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner and so the Petitioner has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.



    Decisions with reasons :

    It appears on perusal of the records that the case was filed on 15.02.2008 and notices were sent to the O.Ps and it appears on perusal of Order No. 5 dated 28.05.2008 that even inspite of service of notices the O.Ps have not appeared to contest this case. Hence the case is heard ex parte.

    It is the specific case of the Complainant that for the purpose of official use they booked 4 cassette type split AC machines at Rs. 2,79,600.00 and out of it they paid Rs. 1,38,000.00 as 50% with the agreement to pay rest 50% at the time of delivery of 4 machines. One machine was delivered and the rest 3 were not delivered and even the one machine which was delivered was not used by the Petitioner which was kept at the basement of the Petitioner-Co. and subsequently some parts of the delivered one machine were found missing.

    And the O.Ps denied to refund Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner and so the Petitioner has filed this case. The quotation of the 4 AC machines given by the O.P. No. 1 is Annexure –A dated 25.01.2007 and date of delivery agreed to Annexure-A is ¾ days approximately from the date of receiving the Order. Warranty Period was 12 months, Free Service 12 months, Annexure-B is the offer letter for the cassette type split AC machine showing unit price of each mchine at Rs. 69,000.00 and 4 machines Rs. 2,79,600.00 and the date of delivery was within one to two weeks after getting official order and validity of order is 30 days from the date of offer, Annexure-C. His purchase order for 4 machines at Rs. 2,76,000.00 and unit price of each machine at Rs. 69,000.00.


    The Petitioner paid Rs. 1,38,000.00 as 50% of Rs. 2,76,000.00 vide Annexure-D. As the O.P. No. 1 failed to supply 4 machines as per agreement and inspite of repeated demands the Complainant cancelled the Order vide Annexure-E. Through Annexure-F the O.P. No. 1 informed the Complainant that due to non-supply of AC machines b7y O.P. No. 2 they failed to comply with the terms of agreement and accordingly they could not supply 3 other AC machines. The O.P. No. 1 in its letter dated 04.05.2007 Annexure-G intimated the manufacturer, i.e., O.P. No. 2 who agreed to refund the amount after deducting 10% lifting charge of the machine. Petitioner-Company did not agree and it disputed as to the contents of the Annexure-G and its letter, marked Annexure-‘H’. In response to the Petitioners letter dated 14.06.2007, Annexure-H O.P. No. 1 gave a reply on 03.07.2007 Annexure-I.


    The O.P. No. 1 issued a cheque for Rs. 69,000.00 as partial refund of Rs. 1,38,000.00 but the O.Ps have not yet refunded the Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner. Service Report about alleged missing of Power PCB, Power Cord, Remote hand-set etc. is found from Annexure-M. The Petitioner challenged the veracity of the contents of such missing of spare-parts of the machine and their protest letter dated 14.09.2007, marked Annexure-N.

    We have also perused the Evidence on Oath of the Petitioner sworn in by Mr. S. L. Mathur, Managing Director of Petitioner-Company wherein he has stated all about the contents made out in the Petition of Complaint and the contents are corroborated by his evidence on Oath.

    It may apparently appear to us that the AC machines when purchased by the Petitioner for his official use it may be for commercial purpose and accordingly he may not be treated as a consumer as provided under Section 2(d) under the C.P. Act. But in this respect Ld. Lawyer for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to a decision reported in 2005-Vol-I CPJ Page 27Harsolia Motors-vs-National Insurance Co.

    Relevant observation in this regard is noted as below : “If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such illustration would be that a manufacturer who is producing one product ‘a’, for such production he may be required to purchase articles, which may be raw materials, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose. As against this same manufacturer if he purchases a refrigerator, a television or an air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even in his office it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for this purpose he is entitled to approach to the Consumer Forum under the Act”.

    In view of the above discussion and considering the facts, circumstances. evidence both on oath and documentary coupled with legal position we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    1) Fives Stein India Projects Pvt. Ltd.,

    8/1, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071.
    Complainant



    ---Verses---

    1) M/s Coolant,

    141/1, Jodhpur Park, Kolkata-700068.



    2) M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd.,

    164/1, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata-700064.
    Opposite Party






    Complainant M/s. Stein Heurty India Projects Pvt. Ltd. by filing a Petition on 30.01.2008 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps – M/s. Coolant & M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. has prayed for passing an Order directing the O.Ps to repay the balance amount of Rs. 69,000.00 along with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs. 1 lac and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000.00 against the O.Ps .

    The fact of the case, in short, is that for the purposeof official use the Petitioner-Company approached the O.P. No. 1 for inspection and quotation in respect of installation of 4 cassette type split air-conditioner machines and accordingly one quotation dated 25.01.2007 has been issued by the O.P. No. 1. Thereafter O.P. No. 2, the manufacturer of air-condition machine also sent one quotation dated 29.01.2007 wherein they demanded Rs. 2,79,600.00 as cost of 4 cassette type split (AC) machine and also requested the Petitioner-Company to place order through their authorized agent O.P. No. 1.


    As per the direction of O.P. No. 2 the Complainant-Company issued one purchase order dated 31.01.2007 to O.P. No. 1 and the Complainant agreed to pay Rs. 2,76,000.00 as cost of 4 cassette type split (AC) machine and Rs. 10,000.00 of installation charge. Expected date of delivery was 08.02.2007 and the Petitioner agreed to pay 50% at the time of delivery. And accordingly the Complainant paid Rs. 1,38,000.00 by Cheque No. 419674 dated 01.02.2007 to O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. acknowledged the same.. But, even inspite of payment of 50% O.P. failed to deliver those 4 machines in time and thereafter by a letter dated 22.02.2007 the Complainant cancelled the order and requested to refund the advance payment of Rs. 1,38,000.00

    O.P. No. 1 on 26.03.2007 intimated that due to non-supply of 3 AC machines by Videocon they failed to install the machine in time and they could delivery only one machine at the basement of the Petitioner-Company. O.P. No. 2 also intimated that O.P. No. 2 assured to refund the entire amount subject to return of the said delivered machine, and therefore, O.P. No. 2 requested the Petitioner to ;release the unused AC machine at the earliest, and the one AC machine supplied by the O.P. No. 1 was not used at the basement of the Petitioner-Company and it was lying there in packed and sealed condition.


    The O.P. No. 1 in their letter dated 04.05.2007 further intimated that the manufacturer O.P. No. 2 agreed to return the entire amount after deducting 10% for lifting charges of the machine. The Petitioner strongly denied because in the previous letter dated 26.03.2007 the O.P. No. 1 never demanded any amount for lifting charges of the machine nor even claimed 10% deduction from the Petitioner-Co.


    In response to the letter of the Petitioner dated 14.06.2007 O.P. No. 1 issued one Cheque of Rs. 69,000.00 dated 03.07.2007 as 5o% of the paid amount and further agreed to refund the balance after getting payment from Vidiocon Industries Ltd. And thereafter O.P. No. 1 assured over telephone for making payment of balance of Rs. 69,000.00 but they have not paid the same and the Petitioner sent letters on 27.07.2007, 17.08.2007 to the O.Ps with a request to return back the machines from their office and refund the balance amount of Rs. 69,000.00. O.P. No. 2 on 13.09.2007 sent their machine for the first time for lifting the same, and surprisingly it was found by the Petitioner that after opening the sealed boxes and inspecting the machine it was found that some spare-parts like Power PCB, Power Cord and remote hand-set were missing..


    The sealed box was never opened earlier and for the first time opened and inspected by the O.P. No. 2 and the Petitioner believe that in order to deprive the legitimate claim of Rs. 69,000.00 the O.Ps raised some illegal and false allegation against the Petitioner and the Petitioner accordingly on 14.09.2007 by a letter to the O.Ps denied the allegations of missing parts of the machines. But even inspite of the negotiations and correspondences through letters the O.Ps have not returned Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner and so the Petitioner has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.



    Decisions with reasons :

    It appears on perusal of the records that the case was filed on 15.02.2008 and notices were sent to the O.Ps and it appears on perusal of Order No. 5 dated 28.05.2008 that even inspite of service of notices the O.Ps have not appeared to contest this case. Hence the case is heard ex parte.

    It is the specific case of the Complainant that for the purpose of official use they booked 4 cassette type split AC machines at Rs. 2,79,600.00 and out of it they paid Rs. 1,38,000.00 as 50% with the agreement to pay rest 50% at the time of delivery of 4 machines. One machine was delivered and the rest 3 were not delivered and even the one machine which was delivered was not used by the Petitioner which was kept at the basement of the Petitioner-Co. and subsequently some parts of the delivered one machine were found missing.

    And the O.Ps denied to refund Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner and so the Petitioner has filed this case. The quotation of the 4 AC machines given by the O.P. No. 1 is Annexure –A dated 25.01.2007 and date of delivery agreed to Annexure-A is ¾ days approximately from the date of receiving the Order. Warranty Period was 12 months, Free Service 12 months, Annexure-B is the offer letter for the cassette type split AC machine showing unit price of each mchine at Rs. 69,000.00 and 4 machines Rs. 2,79,600.00 and the date of delivery was within one to two weeks after getting official order and validity of order is 30 days from the date of offer, Annexure-C.


    His purchase order for 4 machines at Rs. 2,76,000.00 and unit price of each machine at Rs. 69,000.00. The Petitioner paid Rs. 1,38,000.00 as 50% of Rs. 2,76,000.00 vide Annexure-D. As the O.P. No. 1 failed to supply 4 machines as per agreement and inspite of repeated demands the Complainant cancelled the Order vide Annexure-E. Through Annexure-F the O.P. No. 1 informed the Complainant that due to non-supply of AC machines b7y O.P. No. 2 they failed to comply with the terms of agreement and accordingly they could not supply 3 other AC machines.


    The O.P. No. 1 in its letter dated 04.05.2007 Annexure-G intimated the manufacturer, i.e., O.P. No. 2 who agreed to refund the amount after deducting 10% lifting charge of the machine. Petitioner-Company did not agree and it disputed as to the contents of the Annexure-G and its letter, marked Annexure-‘H’. In response to the Petitioners letter dated 14.06.2007, Annexure-H O.P. No. 1 gave a reply on 03.07.2007 Annexure-I.


    The O.P. No. 1 issued a cheque for Rs. 69,000.00 as partial refund of Rs. 1,38,000.00 but the O.Ps have not yet refunded the Rs. 69,000.00 to the Petitioner. Service Report about alleged missing of Power PCB, Power Cord, Remote hand-set etc. is found from Annexure-M. The Petitioner challenged the veracity of the contents of such missing of spare-parts of the machine and their protest letter dated 14.09.2007, marked Annexure-N.

    We have also perused the Evidence on Oath of the Petitioner sworn in by Mr. S. L. Mathur, Managing Director of Petitioner-Company wherein he has stated all about the contents made out in the Petition of Complaint and the contents are corroborated by his evidence on Oath.

    It may apparently appear to us that the AC machines when purchased by the Petitioner for his official use it may be for commercial purpose and accordingly he may not be treated as a consumer as provided under Section 2(d) under the C.P. Act. But in this respect Ld. Lawyer for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to a decision reported in 2005-Vol-I CPJ Page 27Harsolia Motors-vs-National Insurance Co.

    Relevant observation in this regard is noted as below : “If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such illustration would be that a manufacturer who is producing one product ‘a’, for such production he may be required to purchase articles, which may be raw materials, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose.


    As against this same manufacturer if he purchases a refrigerator, a television or an air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even in his office it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for this purpose he is entitled to approach to the Consumer Forum under the Act”.

    In view of the above discussion and considering the facts, circumstances. evidence both on oath and documentary coupled with legal position we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Shri Raghubgir Singh S/O Shri Attar Singh,

    Resident of Village and P.O. Manpur Deora, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.



    … Complainant.

    Versus



    1. M/S Ram Kishan Vijay Kumar,

    Through its Proprietor Main Market,

    Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.



    2. M/S Videocon International Limited

    Through its Authorized Signatory, having its

    Office SCO 80-82, Second Floor, Sector 17-D,

    Chandigarh.



    …Opposite Parties.








    O R D E R:



    This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, on, 02.05.2006, he purchased one refrigerator of Videocon make from the OP No.1, for a sale consideration of Rs.6,750/- vide cash memo No.7119.


    It is averred that the aforesaid refrigerator got defective, inasmuch, as, its freezing effect got lost, within a period of two or three months, as such, the defect was brought to the notice of the OP No.1, who for one reason or another, did not rectify the defect existing in the refrigerator. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OPs, the complainant avers that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP No.1, in its written version, to the complaint, did not deny the sale of the refrigerator to the complainant, rather, contended that the complainant mishandled the refrigerator. It is further contended that the defect in the refrigerator developed after the expiry of the warranty period, there is no question of replacement of the product. As such, it is contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. The OP No.2-manufacturer was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide zimni order dated 13.08.2008.

    3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    4. It is not in dispute between the parties at contest before this Forum, that the complainant, had purchased one refrigerator for a sale consideration of Rs.6,750/- from the OP No.1, manufactured by the OP No.2. The complainant avers that the defect in the aforesaid product, developed within a period of two or three months, from the date of its purchase.


    However, this assertion as asserted by the complainant, in his complaint, which is duly supported by his duly detailed sworn affidavit, though, has been denied by the OP No.1, in the reply, yet, the said reply is neither supported by any affidavit nor detailed affidavit of its proprietor. Hence, for lack of said evidence, it, cannot be construed that the defect in the refrigerator developed after the expiry of the warranty period.

    5. It is admitted case of the parties at contest, that the aforesaid product has been manufactured by the OP No.2, who was also impleaded as OP No.2, during the course of the pendency of this complaint, and also failed to rebut or repulse the allegations of the complainant by filing any reply or evidence on record, hence, we have no hesitation to conclude that the refrigerator as manufactured by the OP No.2, did suffer from inherent manufacturing defect and that’s why it went out of order within two or three months of its purchase.

    6. Consequently, we allow this complaint to the following effects:-

    i) That the complainant shall hand over the defective refrigerator to the OP No.1, at his shop, within a period of fifteen days after the date of receipt of copy of this order, against proper receipt;



    ii) Thereafter, the OP No.1 shall take up the matter with the OP No.2, who is the manufacturer of the product, regarding replacement of the defective refrigerator. The OP No.2 is directed to make available a new refrigerator of the same make and model, to the OP No.1, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of communication by the OP No.2, from the OP No.1, and on receipt of the new refrigerator by the OP No.1, from the OP No.2, it shall deliver the same to the complainant, against proper receipt;



    iii) That the litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP No.2, to the complainant;



    iv) That in case the OP No.2, is not in a position to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one, in that event, it shall refund the sale consideration amounting to Rs.6,750/- to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 06.08.2007, till actual payment is made;



    v) In the above direction, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly.



    7. The learned counsel for the contesting parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas, a certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP No.2 for compliance, under UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
  • clubmahindraclubmahindra Senior Member
    edited April 2010
    Dear Srijata,

    Thank you for voicing out your concerns through this forum.

    In continuation to your interactions with us, we understand that your concerns were addressed to your satisfaction and the refund cheque has also been received by you.

    May I request you to kindly acknowledge the same.

    For any further queries please write to my email - indu.mrc@mahindraholidays.com.

    Thank you for giving us an opportunity to be of service to you.

    Regards
    Indira
    Member Relations
    Club Mahindra
  • edited May 2010
    Hello,

    I am facing issue with my onida DVD remote (model 5522). I have purchased the Onida DVD player from Vijay sales on 14/04/2010 and the remote didn't work from day one. Upon complaining to Vijay sales, someone from Onida service center came but refuse to provide the service as I didn't had the receipt. He said to compliant again once receipt is found. 2nd time person called at 10 AM and told will be there in next 30 mins and came at 3 PM when we were not there. So they closed that compliant. 3nd time the person came but stated the battery in the remote is exhausted (wonder how battery in new brand remote gets exhausted) and he cannot do anything. So, replaced the batteries on own cost but remote still not working. so again called the customer care 4rd time. Person called at took the s.no of the DVD and then no updates.

    Please advice what needs to be done.
  • edited December 2010
    We purchased videocon refrigerator from Ambica Electronics, Narela on 25 july 2008 against bill no. 8050. It is not working about 50 days. I register my complaint on 18/11/2010 to the customer care by telephone. Engineer that comes tell us the gas problem. He fills the gas and charge us Rs 800/- although it is under warranty. But it does not work yet. Then I register my complaint again. This time the engineer change the compressor. But it does not work yet. Then again I register my complaint. This time without visit, engineer closes the complaint. We are very disapponted from the services of videocon although the freeze is under warranty.
Sign In or Register to comment.