Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/3/2017

M.V.S.Girija Kumari, D/o late M.Audinarayanaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIG BAZAAR(future Retail Ltd.) rep. by The Chief Manager - Opp.Party(s)

A.S.Krishna Rao

05 Jul 2017

ORDER

Date of filing       : 21-12-2016

Date of Disposal :  05-07-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Wednesday, this the 5th day of JULY, 2017.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, B.Com., M.L, President(FAC)

                                      Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L.,  Member.                               

                                     Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M, Member

                             

C.C.No.3/2017        

 

M.V.S.Girija Kumari,

D/o.Late M.Audinarayanaiah,

Hindu, aged about 62 years, advocate,

Resident of flat no.101, 2^nd Floor,  Pavani Nivas,

Thyagarayanagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore.                             …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.)

rep.by the Chief Manager,

G.B.Feicity Mall, G.N.T.Road, Dargamitta,

Ward no.24, plot no.15 to 23,

Nellore A.P. – 524 003 (Ph.no.0861-2359335)                     … Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on this day before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.A.S.Krishna Rao, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite party appeared as in-person and  having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

       ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (By Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member)

 

 

1.     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, prays the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to return the cost of the induction cook Top i.e., Rs.2,299/- with costs of the complaint, and to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as damages for troubling and subjecting her to mental agony.

 

2.  The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows:

 

The  complainant purchased a prestige induction cook Top bearing model no.PIC 14.0 on 17-07-2016 along with 24 other items with bill no.0004102 Tn.6751 for an amount of Rs.2299/-. The total bill amount paid is Rs.4,059.38/-.  The complainant at the time of purchase of Induction cook Top demanded to demonstrate as how to use the stove.  But the opposite party instead of demonstration convinced her by stating that the product is a branded one and popular in the world and they will supply the working manual and warranty card along with the product and if any trouble arises, they will exchange a new product in the place of damaged product.  The complainant brought the Induction Cook Top along with other items.  On the next day the parcel was opened by the complaint and known that the upper dome of the stove came out loosely and also found that the product was damaged internally.  The complainant shocked and searched for the warranty card and working manual but not found.  Thereafter, the complainant immediately went to the shop of the opposite party with the damaged Induction cook Top and asked for its exchange. But, the person in the customer service centre of the opposite party informed the complainant that there is no stock for exchange and they will exchange after 15 days.  Again, the complainant approached opposite party on 08-08-2016 and demanded for exchange of new induction cook top. Then, the opposite party refused for exchange and advised the complainant to approach prestige service center and get the stove repaired.  The complainant submits that the opposite party cheated by selling a damaged product by making her to believe that it was a new product.  Later, the complaint got issued a legal notices on 10-08-2016 and on 26-10-2016 to the opposite party and demanded for exchange of the new product or for return of the cost of the Induction Cook Top which is worth of Rs.2,299/- but the opposite party received the notices and failed to complied the demand of the complainant nor to give any reply.  The complainant stating that the opposite party is liable to pay damages for his deficit service and unfair trade practice. So, the acts of the opposite party come under the purview deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint.

 

3.  The brief facts of the written version/counter on behalf of the opposite party are as follows:

 

           The opposite party submits that all the allegations in the complaint are all false and frivolous.  So, the complaint is not maintainable.  The opposite party further states that there is no negligence/deficiency of service  or unfair trade practices, as alleged in the complaint and as such it is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party admitting the averments made in para-2 of the complaint to the extent that prestige cook top bearing model no.PIC 14.0 has been purchased for Rs.2,299/- on 17/07/2016 along with other items from big bazaar, MGB Felicity Mall .  However, this opposite party is not sure whether the complainant or any other person bought the same this opposite party as do not mention the name of the purchaser in the bill and the averments made in para-3 of the complaint are partially correct to the extent of the total bill amount of Rs.4059.38/- but rest of the averments made there in are false and are all bundle of lies.  The opposite party further states that the employee /salesman of the opposite party has not demonstrated the complainant with regard to the working condition of the product and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party is a reputed retailer having its retail stores across the country and is having strict code of conduct and standard operating procedures.  The Opposite party stating that they had handed over the working manual and warranty card which was stamped, to the complainant along with the product on the said date and had not made any such false assurances as alleged.  The opposite party further submits that the product was delivered to the customer/complainant only post inspection of product by the customer personally and further post customer’s satisfaction; the product was sold with the warranty card duly stamped along with the working manuals.   The opposite party was denied that the product delivered was broken/damaged and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same and the averments made in para-5 of the complaint are all bundle of lies and a story been created just to suit the false case of the complainant. In fact, the complainant approached the opposite party only on 08-08-2016 not anytime earlier as claimed in the complaint.  The opposite party admits that the complainant came on 08-08-2016 i.e., after 20 days from the date of purchase of the product, and alleged that the opposite party has delivered a damaged product was denied.  The opposite party also denied that opposite party has not addressed complainant’s concerns and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The opposite party admits that the product on the said date i.e., 08-08-2016, was in broken condition and its close inspection by the officials of the company/opposite party viz., concerned department head Mr.Venkat along with Support Departmental Manager of Guntur Mr.Ravi Sankar, it was found that the product was in used condition and the damage could have had happened due to use of external force like falling from an certain height not because of defect in the product perse.  Out of good gesture, decent industrial practice and as customer friendly organization, the said officials of the company/opposite party requested the complainant to approach the manufacture cum service provider of the product i.e., M/s.TTK Prestige Ltd.  But the complainant did not turned to meet the manufacture cum service provider of the product, instead started harassing the opposite party.  Though, the opposite party tried all possible modes to make the customer understand that the product on the date of delivery had no defects, complainant never heeded to the genuine concerns of the opposite party.  As per the terms of the warranty card issued to the complainant, opposite party informed that they are ready to get the product repaired, for which complainant refused and demanded afresh product.  But, the officials of the opposite party sought special permission from their superiors and went to meet complainant and informed that they are ready to replace the product just to keep customer/complaint delighted. But then the complainant demanded additional money and warned the officials of the opposite party that she will go to court and shall harass the opposite party.  Further, the opposite party did not heeded to such superficial demands of the complainant; the complainant has filed this false complaint.  The  opposite party admitting that the complainant’s legal notices and denied that the opposite party never heeded to the averments made in those notices to the extent that opposite party did exhausted all possible modes to resolve the issue, but it was the complainant who started demanding superficial damages.  The opposite party submit that it is evident from the said notices that complainant had only approached on 08-08-2016 and not anytime earlier.  The opposite party states that it is a sheer case of afterthought, to harass the opposite party and tarnish their reputation and cover up the mistakes of the complainant and all averments made in para-7 are false, baseless and complainant is put to strict proof of the same and the opposite party is not liable for any damages of whatsoever nature may be and that the product was never been of damaged or inferior quality or broken one on the date of delivery of the same to the complainant and there is  no independent material is produced  to demonstrate the product was damaged one on the date of delivery.  Hence, the Hon’ble court may most graciously be pleased to dismiss the present complaint with exemplary costs.

 

3.   After admission of the complaint, notice was issued to opposite party.  The opposite party received the notice and filed their written version.

 

4.  The complainant filed her affidavit and additional affidavit as PW1 on                   25-04-2017 and 16-05-2017 respectively in support of her case and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 documents and also filed her written arguments. The opposite party also filed their affidavit as RW1 on 28-06-2017.

 

5.  Heard arguments of the complainant and perused the pleadings, the documentary evidence placed on record and considered written arguments filed.

     6.    The points that arise for determinations are:

   1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the

       opposite party as pleaded?

   2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

        3) To what relief?

 7. POINTS 1 AND 2: 

           As per the pleadings and evidence placed on record we can understand that the complainant purchased on 17-07-2016 induction cook Top for Rs.2,299/-from the opposite party, for which the opposite party furnished one year warranty to the said product.  To prove the same the complainant filed Ex.A1 document dated 17-07-2016.  But, the said stove packed was opened by the complainant at her house and found that the product was in broken condition and internally damaged.   Subsequently, the complainant approached the opposite party on 08-08-2016 and demanded for exchange of new piece for which, the opposite party refused and advised to approach their service for proper repairs.  Later, the complainant also issued legal notices on 10-08-2016 and 26-10-2016 demanding the opposite party to replace the new product or refund the cost of Rs.2,299/-but the opposite party received the notices and they did not replace the product nor paid the amount to the complainant. 

 

8.    In this case, the opposite party during the course of arguments admitted the Ex.A1 transaction and filed settlement memo on 28-06-2017 stating that they are ready to replace the product.  Accordingly, the opposite party received the damaged piece and replaced the new piece with an extended one year warranty to the complainant from 05-07-2017 onwards, for which the complainant filed memo before this Forum. 

 

 9.       In this case, the complainant’s induction stove got one year warranty but the same was not functioned since the date of purchase, for which she suffered inconvenience.  The complainant also claimed Rs.25,000/- towards damages for mental agony along with costs.  Further, we can presume that if the opposite party replaces the new stove to the complainant in time, failing the present complaint does not arise.  So, the opposite party attitude caused mental agony to the complainant.  After considering the facts of case and circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled Rs.2,000/- towards damages for mental agony along with costs of Rs.1,000/- from the opposite party. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.  POINT NO.3: In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony along with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 5th day of JULY, 2017.    

             

               Sd/-                                Sd/-                                                Sd/-

         MEMBER                          MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

25-04-2017      AND 16-05-2017

:

M.V.S.Girija Kumari, D/o.late M.Audinarayanaiah, Hindu, aged about 62 years, Advocate, resident of 101, 2nd floor, Pavani Nivas, Thyagaraya nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

28-06-2017

Vamshikrishna Goud Macha, aged about 34 years, S/o.Srinivas Goud MAcha, residing at flat No.201, teacher colony 8th street, Ayyapa Gudiflyover, Nellore.

                                                                         

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	17-07-2016	:	Bill for Rs.4059.38Ps. bill bearing no.0004102
Ex.A2	10-08-2016	:	Photostat copy of legal notice got issued by the advocate for the complainant to the opposite party. .
Ex.A3	10-08-2016	:	Registered Post receipt bearing no.RN672286732 IN
Ex.A4	-	:	Photostat copy of India post track consignment no.14
Ex.A5	26-10-2016	:	Copy of legal notice got issued by the counsel for complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A6	26-10-2016	:	Registered post receipt bearing RN 638730204 IN
Ex.A7	27-10-2016	:	Photostat copy of India post track consignment.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

NIL -

 

                

                                                                            Id/-  

                                                               PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

Copies to:

 

1) Sri A.S.Krishna Rao, Advocate, Venkatagiri Town, Nellore District.

 

2) Sri Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), rep. by the Chief Manager,

    G.B.Feicity Mall, G.N.T.Road, Dargamitta, Ward no.24, plot no.15 to 23,

    Nellore A.P. – 524 003 (Ph.no.0861-2359335)                    

 

 

Date when order copies were issued: