Date of Filing : 26.04.2013
Date of Order : 12.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.130/2013
TUESDAY THIS 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
G. Jayachandran,
S/o. Late L.Govindan,
Flat No.GB, Jamals Akila,
Door No.35/18,
Neelakanda Mehta Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ..Complainant
..Vs..
M/s. Godrej Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd.,
Godrej Interio Division,
Rep. by its Assistant Manager,
Pirojoshanagar,
Vikhroli,
Mumbai 400 079
And having Branch showroom
No.47, North Boag Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017. ..Opposite party.
For the Complainant : M/s. Gomathy
For the Opposite party : M/s. S.Ramasubramaniam.
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,417/- towards the cost of the chair, and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:
The complainant submit that he made an order with the opposite party to purchase an executive chair by paying the consideration of Rs.15,470/- and the said chair was delivered on 7.10.2011 within the period of four months the said chair started emanating noise while using. The problem was informed to the opposite party and opposite party’s technician informed the complainant that Gas lift will be only solution to arrest the noise it was not accepted by the complainant and the problem were again reported to the opposite party by the complainant based on this the opposite party informed that they will replace with another chair accordingly another chair was replaced on 20.6.2012 and again this chair also started emanating more noise and it was informed to the opposite party and it was found the Hydraulic / Gas was not at all working and it was total failure of mechanism and there was no proper response from the opposite party and demanding Rs.250/- for inspecting and deducting the problem from the chair which was completed not agreed by the complainant, since the defects were started during the pendency of warranty period. The complainant of the opinion neither the opposite party attended the defects and rectified the problems that has emanated in the chair issued to them and no proper response from the opposite party. The opposite party had committed deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant sought for claim to take back the executive chair supplied to the complainant and to repay the cost Rs.15,470/ paid by him along with interest and demanding a compensation Rs.2,50,000/ for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- as litigation. Hence the complaint.
Written version opposite party is as follows:
2. The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. It is submitted that the complainant purchased the “Glint Platinum Blue” chair from the opposite party show room on 7.10.2011. The said chair purchased by and delivered to the complainant was a display piece from the showroom and was in perfect working condition. The complainant was well aware of the same prior to the purchase of the chair and agreed to take the same showroom piece. After a period of nine months from the date of purchase, on 19.6.2012 the complainant informed the opposite party that the chair was emanating noise every time he used it. The opposite party promptly attended to the alleged issue of the complainant and a technician was immediately sent by the opposite party. The complainant admits that immediate technical service and support was provided by the opposite party for the alleged issue of the complainant which substantiates that there can be no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Subsequently, upon repeated requests of the complainant and without prejudice to the rights of the opposite party, as a gesture of goodwill the chair was replaced with a new chair from the fresh stock of the opposite party. It is further stated that this was accepted by the complainant without any demur. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has also confirmed that the replacement chair was in order and in good working condition. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore this compliant deserve to be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
5. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite party and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were marked on the side of the opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.
6. The said case was filed on 26.4.2013 in this forum and was ordered by this forum on 22.5.2014 as exparte and directed the opposite party to pay the cost of the product purchased by the complainant along with interest at 15% p.a. with litigation charges of Rs.2,000/- within two months from the date of this date. The opposite party appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for appellant and respondent in person, perusing the documents and lower court orders and other orders passed by this District Forum, the State Commission had ordered in the open court the appeal was allowed to set aside the order of District Forum CC.130/2013 dated 22.5.2014 and remanded back to the District Forum, Chennai South for fresh disposal and directing the appellant / opposite party to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the respondent on or before 25.6.2015 failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed.
7. On compliance of the above conditional order the District Forum had directed the parties to the complaintant to appear before the District Forum on 20.6.2015 and the State Commission has directed the District forum to dispose the compliant within three months according to the law on merit.
8. The complainant made an order with the opposite party to purchase an executive chair by paying the consideration of Rs.15,470/- and the said chair was delivered on 7.10.2011 within the period of four months the said chair started emanating noise while using. The problem was informed to the respective authority of the opposite party and opposite party’s technician informed the complainant that Gas lift will be only solution to arrest the noise it was not accepted by the complainant and the grievance were again reported to the opposite party by the complainant based on this the opposite party informed that they will replace with another chair accordingly another chair was replaced on 20.6.2012 and again this chair also started emanating more noise and it was informed to the opposite party and it was found the Hydraulic / Gas was not at all working and it was total failure of mechanism and there was no proper response from the opposite party and demanding Rs.250/ for inspecting and deducting the problem from the chair which was completed not agreed by the complainant, since the defects were started during the pendency of warranty period. The complainant of the opinion neither the opposite party attended the defects nor rectified the problems that has emanated in the chair issued to them and no proper response is from the opposite party the complainant demanded to take back the executive chair supply to the complainant and to repay the cost Rs.15,470/ paid by him along with 24% interest from the date of purchase and demanding a compensation Rs.2,50,000/ for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- as litigation.
9. Based on the directive the opposite party had filed the written version and proof affidavit and gave the facts and circumstances and reasons and the allegation made by the complainant. The opposite party had not disputed about the consideration and purchase and delivery of the goods ordered and supply to the complainant and contended that they have supplied the chair ordered by the complainant on 5.10.2011 Ex.B4 for a consideration of Rs.15,470/- and accepted in para-4 of the proof affidavit that the piece delivered to the complainant was display piece from the showroom and it was perfect working condition at the time of delivery. After period of nine months from the date of purchase i.e. 19.6.2012 the complainant informed the opposite party that the chair was emanating noise every time used the opposite party promptly attended immediate technical support was provided to the complainant and the defects were rectified. The opposite party stated in para-6 of the proof affidavit that the gesture of goodwill the chair was replaced with a new chair from the fresh stock of the opposite party. It is further stated that after expiry of four months of the warranty period the complainant again raised the issue of the problems in the chair whereby the opposite party information the complainant since the warranty period was over. They can attend the complaint on chargeable basis, since the complainant denied the contention of the opposite party to charge for repair the opposite party could not render the service of free of charge and the opposite party prays this forum that there is no deficiency on their part and dispose this complaint with exemplary cost.
10. On perusal of the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents filed the both parties to the dispute the opposite party has failed to discharge their duty of attending the repair work, contending that they could not attend the defects by contemplating that the replace chair was not within the warranty period the contention of the opposite party stating that the warranty was counted from the 1st date of purchase which was not accepted by this forum the warranty should have taking into consideration from the date of 2nd delivery thereby within the period of 2nd warranty i.e. delivery of the replace chair the warranty holds for the period of 2nd delivery. The opposite party should not simply say warranty has got expired. The complainant being an aggrieved party though the emanation of noise from the chair was reported to the opposite party after nine month of purchase it is the duty of the opposite party to give the defect free goods to the purchaser for having received the consideration from the complainant. Since the defective product is under the custody of the complainant till this date and not surrender to the opposite party and the opposite party had not come forward to offer their discretion to inform the complainant neither to get back the 2nd chair / replaced chair which was in defective condition nor attend the rectification of defects and feel forward by the complainant and the purchase what was intended to. We are of the considered view that definitely this would have caused mental agony and the amount claimed by the complainant was exorbitant and thereby we are directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards litigation charges to the complainant.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand and five hundred only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the compensation amount (Rs.7500/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- - - Copy of catalogue.
Ex.A2- - - Copy of visiting card.
Ex.A3- - - Copy of opposite party Toll fee No. card.
Ex.A4- 5.10.2011 - Copy of order confirmation form.
Ex.A5- 5.10.2011 - Copy of cash payment receipt.
Ex.A6- 6.10.2011 - Copy of cash payment receipt.
Ex.A7- 7.11.2011 - Copy of Delivery Challan.
Ex.A8- 21.5.2012 - Copy of Delivery Challan.
Ex.A9- 20.6.2012 - Copy of Invoice.
Ex.A10- 7.12.2012 - Copy of Fax Error Report.
Ex.A11- 7.12.2012 - Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A12- 12.12.2012 Copy of Ack. Card.
Opposite party’s side documents:
Ex.B1- - - Copy of Catalogue.
Ex.B2- - - Copy of Visiting Card.
Ex.B3- - - Copy of opposite party Toll free No. card.
Ex.B4- 5.10.2011 - Copy of order confirmation form.
Ex.B5- 5.10.2011 - Copy of cash payment receipt.
Ex.B6- 7.10.2011 - Copy of Delivery Challan.
Ex.B7- 20.6.2012 - Copy of Delivery Challan.
Ex.B8- 20.6.2012 - Copy of Invoice.
Ex.B9- 7.12.2012 - Copy of Fax Error Report.
Ex.B10- 7.12.2012 - Copy of legal notice.
Ex.B11- 12.12.2012- Copy of Ack. Card.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
