Date of Filing:      19.10.2015  

                                                                                                                Date of Disposal:  19.02.2020

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT: THIRU.   J. JUSTIN DAVID., M.A., M.L.,                           .…. PRESIDENT

                   TMT.K.PRAMEELA, M.Com.,                                            …….MEMBER-I

                   THIRU.  D.BABU VARADHARAJAN, B.Sc., B.L.,             ……MEMBER-II

CC No.46/2015

THIS WEDNESDAY THE 19^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

Mr.V.Lakshmipathi,

No.2/358, Perumalpuram,

Thirunindravur, Chennai -602 024.                                             ….. Complainant. 

                                                                           //Vs//

1.M/s.Surya Stores,

    No.22, K.K. Road, Venkatapuram,

    Ambattur, Chennai -600 053.

2.O-General Service Centre,

    ETS House, 3^rd Floor,

    #71/63, Opp Loyola College,

    Sterling Road,

    Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.                                     …Opposite parties.

This Complaint is coming upon for final hearing before us on 31.01.2020 in the presence of M/s. S.N. Ravikumar, Counsel for the complainant and M/s.G.Prakash, Counsel for the 1^st opposite party and M/s. K.Jayaraman, Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and perusal of the both side documents and hearing the arguments on both sides, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.J.JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been preferred by the complainant Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties seeking direction to replace the split air-conditioner one ton capacity with original O-General make and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this proceedings due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

2.The brief averment in the complaint is as follows:-

The complainant purchased Air Conditioner on 28.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- and when the complainant went to the 1^st opposite party’s shop, the 1^st opposite party recommended to purchase the O-general make of Air-Conditioner promising that no defect in functioning will come and on believing the words of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant purchased the air-conditioner. But unfortunately the air-conditioner supplied by the 1^st opposite party is not properly functioning and there is no proper cooling and thereafter, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to check the air-conditioner, but the 1^st opposite party has not properly assisted the complainant and therefore the complainant verified the service centre of 2^nd opposite party and booked a complaint with the 2^nd opposite party.  After verifying the air-conditioner, to the shock and surprise of the complainant, it was informed that air-conditioner is not the original make and it is a duplicate.  Therefore, the authorized service centre denied for providing the service to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant visited the 1^st opposite party shop and informed that the air conditioner materials supplied by the 1^st opposite party is not the original and further requested the complainant to replace the original piece of air conditioner in the place of duplicate. But the 1^st opposite party has not come forward to replace the duplicate piece of air conditioner, however the 1^st opposite party has accepted that the air conditioner given by him is the duplicate piece.  Because of improper functioning and non-effective of proper cooling the complainant gave complaint and therefore one Mr.Loganathan was deputed by the 2^nd opposite party to attend the fault, who inspected the air conditioner and informed that it is not the original make of O-general and it is the duplicate make.  Therefore the complainant directed to approach the vendor i.e. the 1^st opposite party and the service centre or 2^nd opposite party will not take any responsibility. Therefore the complainant has no other option except approaching this forum for suitable remedy. Hence this complaint.

3. The contention of written version of the  1^st  opposite party is as follows:-

The 1^st opposite party denies all the allegations contain in the above complaint as false except those which are admitted and put the complainant to the strict proof.  It is true that the 1^st opposite party is running a showroom dealing with the domestic appliances having a good reputation in the market and dealing with the various products of the leading manufacturers in India.  All the products available in the shop are supplied by the manufacturers with the bill and whatever product by the 1^st opposite party is with the bill and paying necessary taxes for the same.  The complainant has issued the notice undated for which a reply has been issued requesting the complainant to produce the bill in order to ascertain the factum of sales so as to give attention to the complaint of the complainant. However, instead of circulating the bill so as to verify the authenticity, the complainant proceeded with the complaint before the police and then filed the complaint before this forum as if the 1^st opposite party has neglected to provide necessary service to the complainant and sought damages in the complaint.  The complainant never shown any receipt nor supplied a copy of the bill or delivery challan as demanded by the opposite party through the reply dated 02.05.2015 and his sole intention is to tarnish the image of the opposite party with a view to gain illegal enrichment.  The complainant failed to establish that how he suffered the mental agony or hardship for claiming compensation for the sum mentioned in the complaint and it is necessary on the part of the complainant to explain for making such huge amount as compensation.  Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.

4. The contention of written version of the  2^nd opposite party is as follows:-

The complainant has not purchased any split air conditioner from the authorized dealer or brand shop of the 2^nd opposite party.  Usually after purchasing the air conditioner from the authorized shop, the service engineer attached with the 2^nd opposite party used to go to the purchaser’s place and check the product and verify the condition of the goods then installed the same.  The complainant has registered a complaint in the customer care and the same was registered in the customer case history for not cooling, immediately after the said complaint, a service engineer attached to the 2^nd opposite party has gone to the complainant’s home for service and checked the air conditioner condition.  At the time he came to know that the air conditioner bearing outdoor model no.AOCR12AGC and Indoor model No.ASGA12AGC was not sold by the 2^nd opposite party or their authorized dealer.  The said air conditioner was purchased from unauthorized dealer and the same was installed by some unauthorized persons. Therefore the 2^nd opposite party is not liable to provide any warranty or service or repair or recondition the said air conditioner.  The air conditioner was imported illegally by unscrupulous people and put into market through the 1^st opposite party.  In this regard the 2^nd opposite party have made complaint to the Central Board of Excise and customs, Chairman and Secretary to Central Government Finance department and various customs authorities.  If the complainant purchased the air conditioner from authorized dealer or brand shop of the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party will arrange installation through their authorized service technician and will provide after sales service and warranty as per their standard terms and conditions of warranty.  The entire dispute between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party, in this regard the 2^nd opposite party is no way connected.  The 1^st opposite party is liable for all the allegations and the reliefs.  Therefore this forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

5. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, proof affidavit filed as his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 1^st opposite party proof affidavit filed as his evidence and no document filed, the 2^nd opposite party has not filed proof affidavit and written argument.  Oral argument on both sides.

6. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this forum is:-

(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

(2) Whether the 1^st opposite party is liable to replace the split air conditioner with original O-general make to the complainant?

(3) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

(4) To what other relief the complainant is entitled to?

7. Point Nos.1 & 2:-

The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a O-general make air conditioner for Rs.35,000/- from the 1^st opposite party on 28.06.2014, that the said air conditioner was not properly functioning and there was no proper cooling.  Hence the complainant informed the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party for rectifying the defects in the air conditioner.  In this regard the 2^nd opposite party staff after verifying the air conditioner and informed that the air conditioner is not an original and it is duplicate piece and thereby the complainant suffers mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. The 1^st opposite party contended that all the products available in the 1^st opposite party’s shop are supplied by the manufacturer with the bill.  In this case, the complainant has not filed the copy of receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party to verify the product and the alleged air conditioner was not supplied by the 1^st opposite party.  Further the 2^nd opposite party contented that the alleged air conditioner was not manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and some unscrupulous traders sold the duplicate air conditioner at cheaper price without warranty.  The 1^st opposite party is only liable for the reliefs claimed in the complaint.

9. The complainant filed Ex.A1 Xerox copy of bill issued by the 1^st opposite party, but the 1^st opposite party disputed the bill. Therefore the complainant filed the original copy of bill issued by the 1^st opposite party at the time of argument.  The said receipt contains the complainant’s name, mobile number, address and name of product sold by the 1^st opposite party and his address. Therefore the complainant purchased the air conditioner from the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party not disputed the alleged receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party. Further the 1^st opposite party has written a letter to the Deputy Sub-Inspector Police, Ambattur on 06.06.2015 is as follows:- “vd; filapy; jpU yl;Rkpgjp vd;gtu; fle;j xU tUlj;jpw;F Kd;ghf O/G AC xd;iw thq;fpdhu; mjw;fhf filapd; urPJ kw;Wk; thuz;b fhu;l; nfhLj;jpUe;Njhk;” and the said letter has been marked as Ex.A7.  Therefore the complainant purchased a O-general one ton air conditioner on 28.06.2014 by paying Rs.35,000/- from the 1^st opposite party.

10. The complainant alleged that the above said air conditioner has not a genuine one and the air conditioner sold by the 1^st opposite party is duplicate one.  The 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the O-general clearly admitted that the alleged O-general purchased by the complainant is a duplicate one and not an original O-general air conditioner manufactured by the O-general company.  Hence it is clear that the 1^st opposite party sold a duplicate O-general air conditioner to the complainant and the above attitude of the 1^st opposite party amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

11. The air conditioner purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party has not functioned properly within one year from the date of purchase and the 1^st opposite party failed to rectify the defects found in the air conditioner.  Therefore the complainant has preferred a police complaint and also issued legal notice.  The 1^st opposite party in their reply demanded the original receipt so that they can take action to rectify the defect in the air conditioner.  The complainant even after producing the receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party failed to rectify the defects found in the air conditioner and the above attitude of the 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party is liable to replace the one ton air conditioner with original O-general air conditioner within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the 1^st opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant. Thus the point No.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

12. Point No.3:-

The 1^st opposite party had supplied a duplicate O-general one ton air conditioner to the complainant and the said air conditioner also not functioning within a period of one year from the date of purchase. Therefore the complainant was unable to use the air conditioner.  Further the 1^st opposite party also failed to rectify the defect and the same caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  Under these circumstances the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost from the opposite party. Thus the point No.3 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.4:-

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the 1^st opposite Party is directed to replace the one ton spilt air-conditioner with original O-general make within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the 1^st opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The 1^st opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and also to pay a sum Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards cost of this litigation to the complainant. This complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be payable by the 1^stopposite party within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

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 of this 19^th day of February 2020.

           -Sd-                                                      -Sd-                                                -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                             MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the opposite parties:-

-Nil-

       -Sd-                                                      -Sd-                                                     -Sd-

  MEMBER-II                                      MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT