Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

178/2014

J.Navab Jan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajrang Dugar,Director Marketing,Southern Mill Store - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  20.08.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  29.04.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 29th   DAY OF APRIL 2016

 

C.C.NO.178/2014

 

 

J.Navab Jan,

No.9/4, Balamurugan Street,

Chembiam, Perembur,

Chennai – 600 011.

                                                                             ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

Bajrang : Dugar,

Director Marketing,

Southern Mill Store,

No.240 (Old No.201),

Lingi Chetty Street,

Chennai – 600 001.

	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  : 16.09.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for Opposite Party                      :M/S. N.Varadha Rajan

         

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant  purchased a Power Grinder of 8” on 07.03 2014 for a consideration of Rs.8,400/-  from the Opposite Party including vat. The representation made by the Opposite Party/ vendor that his Grinder is a good quality and he had purchased the same. After taken the Grinder, the Complainant found that it was not of good quality and not in perfect working condition. Therefore the Complainant made oral representation to the Opposite Party to set right the defects or supply a new product. There was no response from the Opposite Party and hence he sent a registered letter on 14.07.2014 and an E-mail notice  sent on 11.08.2014 to the Opposite Party and even after that the Opposite Party did not respond. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for refund of the cost of the product and compensation for loss of business and mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BREIEF:

          The Complaint had purchased the Grinder only after verifying and satisfied the quality and working condition of the product at the time of purchase. Even according to the Complainant he is engaged in the business of   manufacturing and sale of idly and dosa batter to various shops for a quite long time which imply that he is very much having knowledge, quality  and condition of the grinder equipments. So the Complainant having fully satisfied with the quality and working condition he had purchased the said grinder from the Opposite Party and he was using it from 07.03.2014 to 14.07.2014  for about 3 months without any Complaint for his above business and hence he cannot dispute the quality and the working condition of the grinder. The Complainant found out the non working of the Grinder as soon as he reaches his residence even as on the date of purchase of the grinder, he should have returned the Grinder immediately on the same date and he cannot kept quiet for about 3 months by keeping the alleged defective grinder without any Complaint. All the above facts clearly discloses  that the grinder purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party was all along working from the date of its purchase and the Complainant’s allegations are false, baseless and ulterior motivated.  No warranty or guarantee was issued by them in respect of the above Grinder purchased by the Complainant. The Complaint had removed and replaced many parts of the grinder and the machine was not found in its original condition. The Opposite Party deny the Complainant allegations that the Complainant immediately after his purchase made a oral representation to the Opposite Party to set right the alleged defects or supply a new machine in the alternative, since the grinder supplied against was defective. The manufacturer of the Grinder Machine M/s Gagon Udyog also did not issue any warranty or guarantee in respect of the above products and the Opposite Party had just sold the said Grinder purchased from the manufacturers straight away to its customers. Hence the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

 

4. POINT:1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant purchased a Power Grinder of 8” on 07.03 2014 for a consideration of Rs.8,400/-  including vat  under Ex.A1 bill on 07.03.2014 from the Opposite Party.

          5. According to the Complainant on taking a Grinder to his residence he found that the grinder was not all on good quality and he made a Complaint to the Opposite Party to rectify or replace the product and since the Opposite Party did not respond he sent Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A5 mail and Ex.A4 letter to the Opposite Party and even after that he did not respond and therefore he has filed this Complaint.

          6. The Opposite Party would reply that the Complainant is doing batter business and for which to prepare the batter he is using the grinder and therefore he cannot be considered as a consumer and further there is no actual defect as set out by the Complainant and further the manufacturer of the grinder M/s Gagon Udyog was not added as a party and this Opposite Party is only a dealer and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          7. Though the Complainant prepared batter and sold the same in the public that cannot be construed as a commercial since the Complainant is having only one grinder and therefore it would be safely inferred that the income derived in the grinder could have been utilized only for the livelihood of the Complainant and therefore the Complainant could be considered as a Consumer and the argument of the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not a consumer cannot be sustained.      8. The Complainant pleaded in his Complaint that after taking the product to his house he found that it was not of good quality and not in perfect working condition. The Complainant would say that he made oral Complaint and such oral Complaint was denied by the Opposite Party. Only after 3 months of the purchase only first time the Complainant sent Ex.A2 e-mail alleging that he had been facing in the machine that the rust water is leaking while grinding. Such Complaint could be attended only by service man/ service provider. The Complainant ought to have taken the grinder to a service man. The Opposite Party  is only a dealer and he has not accepted to do the service.  Further there is no warranty to the product purchased by the Complainant. The product was also manufactured by M/s Gagon Udyog and he should have been added as a necessary party as pleaded in the written version even after that the Complainant has not taken any steps to implead the manufacturer of the product.

          9. Admittedly the product is a non warranty product and the Opposite Party  is only a dealer and there is rust  water is leaking from the grinding is the defect in the product has to be booked into by the manufacturer and in view of these  facts the Opposite Party /dealer has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

10. POINT:2

          Since the Opposite Party has not committed deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief in this complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 29^th    day of April 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 07.03.2014                          Bill No.894

Ex.A2 dated 08.06.2014                          E-Mail to Opposite Party

Ex.A3 dated 16.06.2014                          E-Mail from Opposite Party

Ex.A4 dated 14.07.2014                          Registered Letter to Opposite Party and

                                                      Acknowledgment

 

Ex.A5 dated 11.08.2014                          E-Mail to Opposite Party

 

Ex.A6 dated NIL                            Photo copies of the Grinder               

                   

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:                                     ……. NIL……

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT