Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

108/2012

M.Devika, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes ltd,regd office- - Opp.Party(s)

N.Sampath

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  24.04.2012

                                                               Order pronounced on:  08.08.2016

 

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

 

MONDAY THE 08^th  DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

C.C.NO.108/2012

 

 

V.Devika,

W/o.Varadharajan,

At No.7/4, Lala Kutty Street,

Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.

                                                                                               ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

Regd. Office,

No.7, Chakraberiya Road (South)

Kolkatta – 700 025.

 

2.Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

Sales Office, Ground Floor,

New No.M-73 Old No.M-1,

Third Avenue,

Chennai – 600 102.

 

	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 03.05.2012

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.N.Sampath

                                                                 Leah Mirnalini Sampath

 

Counsel for  Opposite parties                   : M/s. K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi,

                                                                    K.Aravintha Bharathi, A.B.Rubavathy,

                                                                J.Ranjani Devi. INDUS ASSOCIATES

                  

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 IS IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Euro clean WD Wet and dry vacuum cleaner on 28.04.2011 for a consideration of Rs.9,990/-. The 2^nd Opposite Party’s sales agent delivered the product to the Complainant. He had not sent any person for demonstration. When the Complainant tried to use the Vacuum cleaner the same is not working. Hence she made a Complaint to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party, sent his agent and he tried to operate the instrument, the same is not working and he informed the Complainant that the product is a defective one and he advised the 2^nd Opposite Party to replace the Vacuum cleaner with new one. However, nobody was turned and replaced the product. The Complainant has made several phone calls to the 2^nd Opposite Party to replace to product. There was no response from him. Hence the Complainant sent a letter dated 07.11.2011 to the agent of the 2^nd Opposite Party to replace with new product. Though the agent received the letter he failed to replace the same. The vacuum cleaner is under the warranty. The Complainant issued a legal notice dated 31.03.2012 to the 2^nd Opposite Party and though received by him, he did not reply for the same or any response from him. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to replace the vacuum cleaner with damages for mental agony and Deficiency in Service and cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties are the leading company in manufacturing and marketing, the extensive products which are very much essential in daily life like Water Purifiers, Vacuum cleaners, Air Purifiers, RO Water purifiers, UV Water Purifiers and wet & dry cleaners for both domestic and industrial purpose. The Opposite Parties admits that the Complainant purchased Vacuum cleaner for a sum of Rs.9,990/- . The vacuum cleaner was not working properly is unacceptable. The Complainant would not adhere to the procedures mentioned in the user manual issued by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant without following the procedure has used the product. There is no specific allegation with regard to the condition of the vacuum cleaner. The product supplied to the Complainant is subject to wear and tear as a consequence of the usage. The allegations made by the Complainant that the product is defect one is denied. The Complainant has filed this Complaint to enrich himself at the cost of the Opposite Parties and hence prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

4. POINT NO: 1

          It is an admitted fact that the 1^st Opposite Party manufacturer of the Euro clean WD Wet and dry vacuum cleaner and the same was purchased by the Complainant from 2^nd Opposite Party on 28.04.2011 for a consideration of Rs.9990/- under Ex.A1 purchase bill.

          5. According to the Complainant when he tried to use in vacuum cleaner, it did not work and hence  she made a Complaint to the  2^nd Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party persons came and after inspection of the product,  he informed that the product is a defective one and he advised the 2^nd Opposite Party to replace the vacuum cleaner  with new one and however the 2^nd Opposite Party did not replace the product inspite of several phone calls to  him and the 2^nd Opposite Party supplied the defective  product to her establishes Deficiency in Service and unfair trade practice.

          6. The specific allegations of the Complainant that the 2^nd Opposite Party agent came to the house of the Complainant and after examining the vacuum cleaner informed that the product is a defective one and he also advised the 2^nd Opposite Party to replace with new one was not denied by the Opposite Parties in the written version. Further in the written version para 10 the Opposite Parties stated that they have attended the grievances of the Complainant. If the Opposite Parties attended the problems in the product, they could have rectified the same. No proof filed by the Opposite Parties that they have attended the problems. Further the Complainant letter Ex.A2 received by the 2^nd Opposite Party agent and even after that no one attended the problem. The 2^nd Opposite Party received Ex.A3 notice where he specifically alleged that the product is defective one and requested for replacement. This notice was also not denied, hence considering the evidence and pleading of the Complainant and her documents the Complainant has proved that the product  supplied by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant which was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party is having inherent defect  and that  is why the 2^nd Opposite Party has not  rectified the product and therefore we  hold that the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service.

7. POINT NO:2

          As the product is a defective one and the Opposite Parties have not rectified the problem, the Complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the product accepted. Further due to the defective product the Complainant suffered with mental agony is also acceptable. Therefore it would be appropriate to order that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to refund the cost of the product of Rs.9,990/- and also a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.     

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties   jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.9,990/- (Rupees nine thousand nine hundred and ninety only) towards the cost of the product to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 08^th day of August 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28.04.2011                   Purchasing Bill

Ex.A2 dated 07.11.2011                   Complaint letter

Ex.A3 dated 31.03.2012                   Lawyers Notice

Ex.A4 dated 07.04.2012                   Acknowledgement Card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                      …… NIL ……

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT