Date of Filing 25.09.2023

                                                                                                                                   Date of Disposal: 27.12.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                         …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com.,ICWA (Inter), BL.,                                                          ……MEMBER-II

CC.No.101/2023

THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 27^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

Mr.P.Rajagobal, S/o.Parthasarathy,

210/7, Sri Krishna Auto Spares,

Old Employment office street,

C.V.Naidu Salai, (Near Gnana Vidyalaya HR.Sec. School),

Thiruvallur 602 001.                                                                                ......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

1.Eureka Forbes, Rep. by its CEO,

   Corporate Office B1/B2, 701,

   7^th Floor, Marathon Innova Marathon Nextgen,

   Opp. Ganpatro Kadam Marg lower Parel,

   Mumbai – 400 013.

2.The Manager,

   Eureka Forbes,

   No.92, G.N.Chetty Road,

   East Coast Chambers, Near By Vani Mahal,

   T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.                                                              ….opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                  : M/s.D.Sathish kumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                         :  M/s.Hemant Daswani, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 19.12.2023 in the presence of M/s.D.Sathish kumar, counsel for the complainant and M/s.Hemant Daswani, counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling a defective product along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.18,990/- , to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Aggrieved by the services rendered by the opposite parties in delivering the Vacuum cleaner machine with inherent manufacturing defect the present complaint has been filed.

3.The complainant purchased Eureka Forbes Robo Vac NMOP Robotic floor cleaner with 2 in 1 mopping and vacuum, Anti Bacterial cleaning Black, Grey-1 Robo vacuum vide order No.OD125049160896186000 dated 21.05.2022 for a sum of Rs.18,990/- through seller M/s.Bhumitha Enterprises.  The product was delivered on 08.06.2022.  It was assured that the product was designed with recent technology and that service by the technician in future was promised.  From the beginning the Robotic vacuum cleaner was not working properly and finally on 08.07.2022 it stopped working.  Immediately a Toll Free complaint was raised and registered.  The opposite party’s technician assured that they would attend the problem after which, only one technician visited the complainant’s home and after receiving payment of Rs.530/- fixed the issue.  Within 2 days again the product stopped working and when online complaint was registered there was no reply.  Thereafter there was no response from the opposite parties and hence the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to refund the product cost of Rs.18,990/- and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

4. Both the opposite parties filed written version stating that they have good reputation and Good Will and well known for its products of Aquaguard and were engaged in manufacturing and service of electronic cleaning machines. It is stated that the opposite party approached the complainant and serviced the product and as the product was out of warranty period they charged for the service done by them. For the 2^nd time on receipt of legal notice the technician went to the complainant’s house and observed that the product is out of warranty, the complainant refused to take service and sought for replacement of FOC part. Thus stating that there is no cause of action for the complaint they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A7 were submitted. Though written version was filed on the side of opposite parties they did not file any proof affidavit and hence on their side proof affidavit stage was closed on 13.12.2023. Thereafter, they did not come forward to file any written arguments and make oral arguments and hence the argument stage of opposite parties was also closed.

Points for consideration:-

1. Whether non joinder of the Seller M/s.Bhumitha Enterprises affects the maintainability of the complaint?
2. Whether the complaint allegations as to delivering a defective product and not providing services by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service with respect to the product Eureka Forbes Robo Vac NMOP Robotic floor cleaner and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
3. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled for?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of their contentions;

1. Tax Invoice dated 27.05.2022 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Receipt for Rs.18,990/- dated 08.06.2022 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Message screen short was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Account usage and recharge statement from 01.06.2023 to 30.06.2023 dated 26.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Account usage and recharge statement from 01.07.2023 to 26.07.2023 dated 26.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Legal notice with postal receipt dated 29.07.2023 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A7;

6. Though it is stated in the pleadings that the complainant had purchased the product from one M/s.Bhumitha Enterprises the complainant did not make them as a party to the proceedings and though no defence as to non joinder of necessary party was taken by the opposite parties being a question of law this commission intended to discuss the said issue.

7. Though the complainant purchased the product from M/s.Bhumitha Enterprises he alleged complaints only with regard to manufacturing defect and the service rendered by the opposite parties with respect to the product manufactured by them.  Hence non joinder of Seller/party through whom the product was sold does not affect the maintainability of the complaint.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:-

8. Vide Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 it is clearly proved that the complainant had purchased the product manufactured by the opposite parties which fact was not disputed by them.  Further the message screen short vide Ex.A3 proves the allegation of the complainant that the product was serviced on 08.07.2023 by the opposite parties and an amount of Rs.530/- was collected towards service charges.  Again on 11.07.2023 complaint was registered by the complainant for which the opposite parties had sent a message that their technician will visit within next 24 working hours to attend the request.  For the 2^nd complaint made by the complainant it is seen that no proper response was given by the opposite parties.  In the written version the opposite parties had come up with the defence that for the 2^nd time as the product was out of warranty period when they insisted for payment, their service was refused by the complainant.  Apart from filing written version the opposite parties did not turn up to file any proof affidavit and produced documents in support of their contentions.  Also as the product completely stopped to work within two years of purchase it clearly proves that the product was suffering with some inherent manufacturing defects.  Further for the pleading raised by the complainant that the product was giving trouble from the day one of its functioning, the same was not denied by the opposite parties.  In the facts and circumstances when the admission made by the opposite parties that they serviced the product on payment of service charges within two year of purchase coupled with non production of evidence for refusal of service by the complainant taken into consideration, this commission could safely concludes that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service.  When the product becomes dormant within two days of service that too within 2 years of purchase, we also could clearly hold that the product suffers with certain manufacturing defects. Thus we answer the point holding that the complaint allegations as to delivering a defective product and not providing proper service by the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant.

Point No.3:-

9. With regard to the relief to be granted as we have held above that the opposite parties had committed clearly deficiency in service we direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.18,990/-, the product cost within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and we also direct the complainant to return the product to the opposite parties on receipt of the above payment. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the delivery of the defective product and deficiency in service caused by opposite parties along with cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1&2 directing them jointly and severally

a) To refund the sum of Rs.18,990/- (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred and ninety only) being the cost of the product with 6% interest from the  date of purchase till realization to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and we direct the complainant to return the product to the opposite parties on receipt of the above payment;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

 c) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;

 d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 9% will be levied on the said amount from the date of purchase till realization.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 27^th day of December 2023.

        Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-                                                                                             

MEMBER-II                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

      Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-

  MEMBER-II                                                                                                      PRESIDENT