Date of Filling : 19.01.2015.
Date of Disposal : 29.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.
PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S. SUJATHA, B.Sc., … MEMBER - I
Consumer Complaint No.11/2015
(Dated this Friday the 29th day of April 2016)
Mr. Nantha,
S/o. Late G. Radhakrishnan,
No.2/B3, 8th Street,
Rajashanmugam Nagar,
Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai - 600 019. … Complainant.
/ Versus /
1. M/s. Delphi Automotive systems Pvt. Ltd.,
No.240, Udyog Vihar,
Phase I, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122 016.
2. Vicky Automobiles and Tyres,
No.10, T.H. Road,
Tollgate,
Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai - 600 019. … Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 28.04.2016 in the presence of M/s. G. Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for the complainant and M/s. A.R. Poovannan, Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Opposite parties and having perused the documents and evidences of both sides, written and oral arguments on the side of the opposite party this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties for seeking relief to the extent of Rs.50,000/-, being loss suffered by the complainant as a result of the defects in goods and damages for the mental tension, agony and disappointment suffered by the complainant with cost.
The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-
The complainant is running a travel business and he purchased a TATA Indica cars Drive shaft manufactured by the 1st opposite party bearing product No.D35012 through the 2nd opposite party on 06.10.2014 vide bill no.43191. the purchase price is Rs.2,250/- inclusive of all taxes. On 06.10.2014 the Drive Shaft was broken and unfit for replacement and the complainant returned the broken part and requested the 2nd opposite party to rectify the defect. The representative of the 2nd opposite party attended the complainant and assured that he would replace it with the new one from the 1st opposite party.
2. The 2nd opposite party have neither received the goods back nor repaid the purchase price, instead of that of the 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to come on 12.10.2014 for further arrangements. On 12.10.2014 the 2nd opposite party did not answer properly. The complainant again approached the 2nd opposite party on 18.11.2014 for replacement but ended in vain. Based on the assurance given by the quality and customers feedback by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant opted to purchase the Indica Drive Shaft from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. However, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties have deceived the complainant about the quality assurance and has made him to purchase a defective and non-functioning product.
3. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are jointly responsible and liable for the defects in goods, damages and suffering undergone by the complainant. The complainant had issued a legal notice on 20.10.2014 and eventhough received the said notice, and on 07.11.2014, the 2nd opposite party to that effect, the complainant on 02.12.2014 sent the rejoinder notice in order to deny the facts said by the opposite parties in their notice dated 07.11.2014. On 15.12.2014, the 2nd opposite party issued a reply for the rejoinder issued by the complainant. After that, there is no response from the side of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.
4. The contents of the written version of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are briefly as follows:-
This complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. The opposite parties strongly denies all the allegations made in the complaint except those which are all specifically admitted herein. The complainant is put to very strict proof of purchase of the product from the opposite party on 06.10.2014 for the first time. The opposite parties denies the allegation that the Drive shaft was broken and unfit for replacement for want of knowledge and returned the broken part and requested this opposite party to rectify the defect. The shop representative assured to replace with a new one. The opposite parties neither received the goods back nor paid the purchase price and directed the complainant to come on 12.10.2014.
5. The opposite parties strongly denies the allegation that no opportunity was given to the complainant to check the quality of the product at the time of purchase, the complainant purchased only on the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant was not permitted to open the sealed cover, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties deceived the complainant about the quality and has made him to purchase a defective and non functioning product, the 2nd opposite party is vicariously liable to pay damage to the complainant, the complainant purchased the product only because they want an imminent necessity for his professional use, the product if it had worked properly it would made immense profit, the complainant was put to mental agony and monetary loss, the opposite party failed to provide satisfaction, the opposite parties are jointly liable to damage and compensation.
6. The complainant is running travels and hence he is well aware of the spare parts, its quality and its genuineness and the marketer. The complainant knowing fully well about the 1st opposite party and the availability of the original spares of the 1st opposite party with the 1st opposite party had purchased the complaint mentioned product. Further the spare was opened and checked by the driver of the complainant at the opposite party end itself. The complainant though has stated in the complaint that the drive shaft is broken, no where it is mentioned that where actually it broken and whether there is any manufacturing defect. The complainant filed to make out a specific complaint and simply making a bald allegation. The complainant was not chosen to surrender the alleged defective shaft till today with the opposite parties to take further action.
7. Further, the complainant purchased the drive shaft firstly on 28.09.2014 and not on 06.10.2014 as alleged in the complaint. The complainant as admitted in the complaint, he is running a travels business and thus the complainant will be treated as a Consumer u/s 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable on that score itself. The complainant wantonly without fulfilling his basic obligation has filed this false and vexatious complaint. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint has not made out any specific case against the opposite parties and the complainant only to threaten and to make some unlawful enrichment has filed this complaint without any merits. The complainant is not bonafide. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In order to prove the case, on the side of the opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed and no document marked as his evidence.
9. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
10. In order to prove the case of the complainant, inspite of so many opportunities and sufficient time was given, the complainant has not come forward to file his proof affidavit as his evidence and documents if any on his side and therefore, it is closed. Whileso, the proof affidavit on the side on the 1st and 2nd opposite parties is filed. But no documents submitted on their side. The complainant has neither come forward to file his written arguments nor to adduce the oral arguments eventhough sufficient time given and therefore, it is closed.
11. Point no.1:-
According to the case of the complainant is that, the 2nd opposite party has neither received the broken Drive shot pack nor repaid the purchase price and thereby, the opposite parties have committed the deficiency in service. On the other hand, it was contented by the opposite parties that the complainant have never returned the broken part and no point of time the opposite parties has process to replace the same and infact, the complainant has not at all purchased on the relevant dates mentioned in the complaint and furthermore, the complainant himself admitted that he is running a travels business and thus the complainant is not a Consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. At the outset, it goes without saying that it is the prime and foremost duty of the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint by means of relevant evidence. But in fact, the complainant has not come forward to produce his evidence in spite of sufficient opportunities and time was given. It clearly shows the disinterest of the complainant in this matter. While so, the opposite party has come forward to file his written version as well as the proof affidavit with contentions by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
13. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions placed before this Forum, it is crystal clear that there is no evidence put forth on the side of the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint. Then the contention raised on the side of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a Consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the admission of the complaint that he is running a travels business. In this aspect the plea taken by the opposite party holds good. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the complainant has not proved his complaint properly. Thus point no.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point no.2:-
As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and answered this point accordingly. 15. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 29th April 2016.
Sd/-**** Sd/-****
MEMBER - I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed by the complainant:-
Nil.
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-**** Sd/-****
MEMBER - I PRESIDENT
