BEFORE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 617 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.174 OF 2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
Between
Soma Narayana S/o Soma Laxmaiah
aged about 61 yrs, Occ: Pvt Service
R/o 15-21-1/L-145, Balaji Nagar
Near Durga Temple, Kukatpally,
R.R.District
Appellant/complainant
1. M/s Next Retails Shop
M/s Videocon Distributors
2. M/s Marvelous Electronics
Both are R/o Patil Buildings
Bhavani Complex, Near IBP, Hyderabad-37, R.R.Dist
3. M/s Videocon Appliances Ltd.,
H.No.24-27/1, Plot No.B8/3
block no.3 IDA Uppal, Hyderabad-29
(added as per orders in FAIA 2134/2011
dt.27.1.2012)
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents
QUORUM:
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
1. `9,400/- and a warranty for a period of two years was furnished by the respondents. The appellant complained to the Manager, central service operations of the second respondent- company through his letter dated 26.04.2009 that the washing machine was not functioning and his complaint was rejected by the second respondent on the premise that the body parts affected is not covered by the warranty. The appellant has submitted that the tub of the machine got tilted due to faulty material used in the manufacture of connecting spindle which resulted in non-rotation of the tub. The appellant got issued notice dated 6.06.2009.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1. Whether the respondents sold defective washing machine to the appellant?
2. Whether the respondents have rendered deficient service to the appellant?
3. to what relief?
7. :
8.
2.
7.
9.
10.
11.
13.
14.
15.
16.
9.
My client states that he has purchased Videocon Washing machine MODEL No.K-5500, for an amount of Rs.9400/- vide cash memo no.949, from your dealer M/s NEXT RETAIL SHOP ON 18.8.2007.
Under the circumstances I hereby call upon you to make the payment of Rs.9,400/- (rupees nine thousand four hundred only) against the Washing Machine or replace the same product within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice .
10.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in ”Jaswanth singh vs Malwa Automobiles Pvt ltd and others “
We agree with the Fora below thatRespondent No.2 is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the present case. So far asRespondent No.1 is concerned, we do not agree with the Fora below that he is to also share the blame. It is on record thatRespondent No.1 being the manufacturer of the vehicle had through a circular informed all its dealers that the cars manufactured in the year 2000 could be given at a discount so that they could clear the stock of older cars. This fact was in the knowledge ofRespondent No.2 since he was in receipt of the circular. In fact,Respondent No.1 had levied a fine on this particular dealer for misrepresenting facts to the customers. Further, it is important to note in this context that theRespondent No.2, i.e. the dealer, is not an agent ofRespondent No.1 as the cars were sold on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis and, therefore,Respondent No.1 cannot be held liable for any acts of omission and commission including deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part ofRespondent No.2. We feel that the Fora below erred in not appreciating these facts while holdingRespondent No.1 also guilty of deficiency in service. We, therefore, modify the order of theState CommissionRespondent No.2 was guilty of deficiency in service. We absolveRespondent No.1, the manufacturer, of the same. Since the vehicle has now been used for 9 years, we agree that there is no case to order its replacement. However, to compensate the Petitioner for the mental agony and harassment caused byRespondent No.2, we direct thatRespondent No.2 pay him Rs.1 lakh within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of this order failing which interest @ 6% shall also be applicable on this amount from the date of default.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18. .
19. In the result,
KMK*
