Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/382/2018

N.Kishore Kumar & others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S.Stanley John.

25 Feb 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :09.07.2012

                                                                    Date of disposal            :25.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

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

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.382/2018

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 25^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

1.N.Kishore Kumar,

2. N.Dinesh Kumar,

3.N.Vasanth Kumar,

New No.7, Jaganathan Street,

Eldams Road, Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 018.

                                                                                                  .. Complainants.                                                                        ..Vs..

 

M/s.Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director,

No.92, East Coast Chamber, 4^th Floor,

G.N.Chetty Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

                                                                                                ..  Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for the complainants                      : M/s.S.Stanley John and another

Counsel for  opposite party                                : M/s.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.23,970/- to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony  and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.153/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.382/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainants are the owners of the property situated at No.7, Jaganathan Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 and they had constructed a new building in the above said property and for safe guarding their  home effectively, they had contacted the office of the opposite party on August 2010 for putting up video door phone along with cameras to be installed in their building. The opposite party had raised a bill bearing No.798 dated 24.08.2010 for Rs.23,970/- towards the costs of video door phones along with an additional camera and for installation charges. The complainants had paid the entire sum of Rs.23,970/- to the opposite party on 24.08.2010 itself. Since the building was being constructed at that time, opposite party had stated that they will install the camera and the video phones at the time of completion of the building. The complainants had informed office of the opposite party about the completion of their building on January 2012. The employees of the opposite party had given a call report bearing No.1142 dated 24.02.2012 in which they had stated that installation will be done on 27.02.2012. No one turned up from the office of the opposite party on 27.02.2012 or on the subsequent dates. The complainants are now residing in their premises without any proper security in their  homes. Having paid a sum of Rs.23,970/- to the opposite party  during 24.08.2010 itself, opposite party had not cared for the installation inspite of repeated requests from the complainants. The opposite party had committed deficiency in service  by not installing the video door phones even after receipt of the entire payment. The complainants was put to mental agony due to the inordinate delay in affixing the video door phones.  Therefore the opposite   party is liable to pay compensation for the mental agony suffered by them. Hence this complaint.  

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

           The opposite party is a leading company in the field of marketing various products of different companies which are very much essential in daily life like Water Purifiers, Vavum Cleaners, Air Purifiers, UV Water Purifiers, Euro Vigil – Video Phones and wet and dry cleaners for both domestic and industrial purpose. The complainants has purchased the said “Euro Vigil – Video Phone System” for  commercial purpose. Since it is for commercial purpose, he is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Therefore the complaint itself is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.  This complaint liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties since the manufacture of these product is not included as parties in this complaint. The opposite party during  the construction of the building, the service personnel of the opposite party had attended, guided the construction people to do the wiring for the video phone. It was ongoing site at the time of order taken. The service persons of the opposite party team helped their electrical person for laying the cable for facilitating the installation of the Éuro Vigil’- Video Phone. The opposite party service persons periodically visited the construction site till the completion of the site. The complainants were asked them to install the Ëuto Vigil”- Video Phone after the entire construction of the building over and obtain the electricity connection in the building. The opposite party awaiting for the call from the complainants and periodically made phone calls to the complainants to complete the installation.  But all of a sudden, they got the Legal Notice during February 2012 for non-attending the sites. Sales Head Mr.Karthikeyan has gone to complainants place for resolving the issue, but the complainants are not allowed him to install the Euro Vigil – Video Phone. Hence the opposite party delivered the product along in their house. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.     

03. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the opposite party liable to refund  a sum of Rs.23,970/-?
3. Whether the complainants entitled for compensation and cost?

4.To what other relief, the complainants is entitled?

04. POINT NO :1 TO 3

The complainants  are the owners of the property  situated  at No.7 Jaganathan Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 18 and they constructed a new building in the above said property.  The opposite party  is a leading company in the  field of marketing various products of different companies including Euro Vigil Video Phones. The complainants approached the opposite party during August 2010 for putting up video door phone along with  Cameras to  be installed in their building to safe guard their home. The complainants paid the entire sum of Rs.23,970/- to the opposite party on 24.08.2010 itself  and opposite party also paid a bill for Rs.23,970 on 24.08.2010 towards the cost of  video door phone , additional camera charge and installation charges. Since the building was being under construction the opposite party had stated they will install camera and video phone at the time of completion of the building.  The opposite party has not disputed the above facts.

05. The case of the complainants is that  they informed the  opposite party about the completion of the building on January 2012 and employees of the opposite party visited the building on 24.02.2012  and given a call report stating that the installation will be done on 27.12.2012, but no one from the office of the opposite party turned up on 27.02.2012 or the subsequent date, that opposite party  not cared  to install the camera and video inspite of repeated request and same caused mental agony to the complainants.

               06. The opposite party  contended  that during construction of the building the service personal of the opposite party had attended  and guided the construction workers to do the wiring for the video phone, that the complainants were asked the opposite party to install the Euro Vigil Video Phones after the entire construction of the building and obtaining the electricity connection in the building, that the opposite party awaiting call from the complainants to complete the installation, that  all of a sudden the opposite party received legal notice and there is no negligent on the part of the opposite party.

               07.The complainants  paid a sum of Rs.23,970/-  to the opposite party on 24.08.2010  towards cost  of  video door phone three numbers. Ex.A1 is the copy of the order form issued by the opposite party. According to the both parties the video door phone and cameras to be installed only after completion of the construction of  building. The complainant completed the construction during Feb 2012 and informed the opposite party to install the video cameras. The service personal from the opposite party  visited the building on 24.02.2012  and informed the complainants  that they will install on 27.02.2012. Ex.A2 is call report dated 24.02.2012 issued by the opposite party to the  1^st complainant. In Ex.A2 the service personal of the opposite party  stated as follows: Checked the site calling then continuity checked further plan installation to discussed the customer. Installation coming on Monday (27.02.2012).  But the opposite party  failed  to install the  video door phone and camera to the complainants buildings. Therefore, the complainants on 26.05.2012 issued a legal notice to the opposite party. Ex.A3 is the copy of legal notice. The opposite party received the legal notice. Ex.A4 is the copy of acknowledgement. Inspite of the receipt of legal notice, the opposite party failed to install the video phone and also failed to return the amount of Rs.23,970/-. Hence the complainants approached this commission.

               08. The opposite party has not filed any documents to show that they are ready install the video door phone and camera to the complainants house  on 27.02.2012 or subsequent dates. The opposite party in his call report dated 24.02.2012 clearly stated that they will install the video on 27.02.2012, but the opposite party failed to install on 27.02.2012 or subsequent dates. The  opposite party  being the  company received the amount, duty bound to install the video door phone and camera, but failed their duty. The above attitude of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

               09. The opposite party received 23,970/- in the year 2010 and request the opposite party to install video and camera during Feb 2012 and therefore the complainants filed this complaint during 2012  and  the case is pending for more than 10 years.  During the time of arguments the counsel for the opposite party stated that the opposite party is ready to install the Door Video phone and camera, but this commission find  no useful purpose will be served to direct the opposite party to install  video phone and camera after 10 years. Further, the complainants want for refund of the amount. Under these circumstance the opposite party is liable to refund the  amount of  Rs.23,970 to the complainants. The opposite party is after receipt of entire amount failed to install the product in the house of the complainants and same caused mental agony to the complainants. Therefore the complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

    10. POINT NO :4

               In this result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.23,970/-(Rupees twenty three thousand nine hundred and seventy only) being the cost of Video Door Phones and Camera  and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings  to the complainants

               The above amount shall be paid to the complainants within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.    

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 25^th  day of February 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS:

Ex.A1 dated 24.08.2010                   Order from issued by opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 24.02.2012                   Call Report by opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 26.05.2012                   Legal Notice issued by complainants

Ex.A4 dated 29.05.2012                   Acknowledgement Card

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                                                … NIL ……

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT