BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 5^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint under Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to refund Rs.4,100/- paid towards replacement of defective motor, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, to pay Rs.5,200/- towards purchase of new machine, caused due to the deficiency of service by OP, cost of litigation and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant stated in his complaint that he was using Vacuum cleaner of Eureka Forbes since a long time. It was functioning well at the beginning. Due to less usage for a long time it was troubling frequently by switching off. Complainant stated that as per his knowledge the problem is with the switch, later he realized that the said Eureka Forbes Vacuum cleaner was not functioning well due to the motor defect in the said machine. Hence he decided to approach the company with their customer care number and lodged complaint with them, for that OP has acknowledged the same. Thereafter OP company deputed service technician for the inspection, he visited on 01.10.2022. After inspection he told there is some problem with switch and he took the machine for further check up as which was not equipped to repair it on the spot. Complainant stated that he intimated technician to inform and get approval from him before going to repair the said problem. The reason is that he is not interested to spend more money on the old vacuum cleaner, instead he wanted to go for a new machine with all sought of guarantee.

3. Complainant further stated that the technician come to his house on 11.10.2022 with vacuum cleaner and asked for Rs.6,000/- without any documents for the repair. He asked for break-up for the said amount, technician said that he has changed the motor that it costs around Rs.5,000/- plus service charges of Rs.530/- plus GST and other expenses, on the ground that he asked him to take consent before executing the repair work and its cost. Complainant strongly oppose that he has not taken approval before going to change the motor as he expressed earlier, without any reply from technician instead he tried to convince and requested complainant to accept the product as he had no intention to take it back. Finally he started bargaining on the charges and agreed to accept for Rs.4,500/- inclusive of all other expenses. Complainant further stated that he suspected the nature of technician that clearly exhibits the intention of OP technician to deliver the product somehow. Then complainant expressed his interest in buying a new vacuum cleaner instead of investing money on repair of old machine. At the same time complainant asked him to issue guarantee which he has replaced, technician said that the motor got 6 months guarantee from 11.10.2022. With all such representation of OP technician, complainant settled it for Rs.4,100/- inclusive of other expenses. When the complainant had demanded for the receipt, OP technician said that the receipt will come through E-mail and obtained the E-mail ID of complainant and he asked complainant to pay the amount to his account which was not agreed by complainant. OP took the details of GSTIN and he assured that it will be forwarded to the concerned and GST will be raised.

4. Complainant further submitted that after all kind of discount and for testing purpose, complainant switch on the product for few second and it worked, then complainant has paid Rs.4,100/- through his account on his No.9611764296 through Phone-pay after confirming from his boss Mr. Raghavendra Shetty over phone. Unfortunately complainant did not use the vacuum cleaner for long time, as his house was getting renovated. On the account of testing he tried to use it for wet cleaning, but he could not use it since the machine was switch off after few seconds, He stated that it runs only for few seconds first then it switch off again and again. He could not use the machine as assured by the technician of OP company. Complainant called the technician to complain about the function of motor which he has replaced, he has not taken any responsibility for it and told him to talk to his boss Mr. Raghavendra Shetty of his No.984 595 4250. After further follow up technician visited and given lame excuses. These all happened within 3 months after the repair. Both technician and his manager Raghavendra has argued over time when complainant called them to raise his complaint. Complainant alleged that though OP has given guarantee for 6 months for the motor which he has replaced on 11.10.2022. For one or the other reasons OP tried to escape from the liability, after several requests and guarantee they issued the Tax invoice dated 20.10.2022 without GST number. As stated by OP and OP manager and technician, the guarantee was mentioned in the said bill hence complainant did not ask for guarantee card. The complainant approached service centre when the technician and manager was not responding properly, service centre offered him Rs.2,500/- in exchange of new machine that worth Rs.17,000/-, it clearly shows OP is deficient in service and escapes from responsibility. Hence this complaint.

5. Notice sent to OP which was duly served on OP, but on the date of appearance OP remained absent, hence OP placed Ex-parte.

6. The case is set down to adduce evidence of complainant, accordingly complainant filed his affidavit evidence reiterated as stated in his complaint and filed 3 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Heard arguments of complainant and proceed to pass the order on merits.

7. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

9.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

10. Point No.1:- Complainant has produced material documents for which he has replaced motor in the vacuum cleaner by OP company which is at Ex.P.1. The very documents discloses on 20.10.2022, complainant has paid Rs.4,140/- to OP through Phone pay to Mr. Puneeth who said to be a technician of OP company. For that Op has issued receipt which is at Ex.P.1. On perusal of the entire complaint, OP has misrepresented to complainant with regard to the motor replacement and also about the functioning, guarantee of the motor which he has intended to replace. Though the complainant has expressed, he is not ready to invest the money on old vacuum cleaner, instead he is willing to purchase a new one. After several efforts OP convinced complainant and received money of Rs.4,100/- finally and replaced the motor in vacuum cleaner, but as OP assurance, the motor was not functioning well, several times it switched off within few seconds of its start. With all such frustrations, complainant raised complaint with OP and his manager, OP neither taken his complaint seriously nor replied properly with complainant thinking that he is customer of the company. It shows the adamant, negligent attitude of OP between the consumers. When he received Rs.4,100/- from complainant and assured about the functioning of vacuum cleaner after replacement, which is not true and just. Hence it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP, for which he is liable. Since it was necessary for the complainant, complainant was intended to buy a new one instead of OP’s pressure, complainant has invested his money on the old one which is not functioning well. Hence in our considered view, OP neither come before this commission to defend his case nor he complied the claims of the complainant. Therefore the evidence and the documents produced by complainant which are unchallenged. On the above reasons we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.

11. Point No.2:- Complainant has claimed to refund of Rs.4,100/- and Rs.5,200/- for the purchase of new machine and GST benefit of Rs.484/- and he also claimed for Rs.25,000/- as compensation, which seems to be exorbitant. Hence in our view the direction to OP for refund of Rs.4,100/- , with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 20.10.2022 till realization. OP is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation is just to grant in the ends of justice. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.2 in partly affirmative.

12. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-      

ORDER

i) Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is partly allowed.

ii) OP is directed to refund Rs.4,100/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 20.10.2022 till realization.

iii) OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Award amount from the date of 20.10.2021.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 5^th day of SEPTEMBER, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL