Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/235/2019

J Chellapa, BA - Complainant(s)

Versus

Godrej & Boyce mfg.co.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

07 Feb 2023

ORDER

                                                    Date of Complaint Filed : 29.07.2019

                                                    Date of Reservation      : 25.01.2023

                                                    Date of Order               : 07.02.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.235 /2019

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

J.Chellappa, B.A., B.L., DLAL,

Advocate,

No.1, 9^th Trust Cross Street,

R.A.Puram, Chennai 600028.                                                                                                          ... Complainant                

..Vs..

 

1.The Sales Manager,

   Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd,

   18/43 Mylapore Showroom,

   Luz Church Road,

   Chennal 600 004.

 

2.Godrej Mart Care,

   Ideas Services,

   28 Jeevan Nagar, 2^nd Street,

   Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088.

 

3.The Manager,

   Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd,

   1 Sidco Industrial Estate,

   Ambattur, Chennai 600 098.                                                                                                              ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant     : M/s. V. Rajagopal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam and Associates

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the 3^rd Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.7,059/- being the amount paid by him towards AMC for the period from 01.07.2011 to 01.07.2019 along with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, mental agony, hardship and financial loss caused to him in not complying with the AMC entered into with the 3^rd Opposite Party.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had purchased a Godrej Refrigerator, Model Code: RD02E2B Model Description: GDE23 D1 Mexican Red, Appliance serial no: RDO2E2B-100600589 on 01.07.2010 from the 1^st Opposite Party. He need not have entered into service contract with the 3^rd Opposite Party, since the Protection Plan for his refrigerator is available for a period of 10 years up to 01.07.2020. However, as requested by the 3^rd Opposite Party, he entered into a service contract with them for the period 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2015 and paid a sum of Rs.2,134 towards AMC to the 3^rd Opposite Party. Yet again he paid a sum of Rs.2,500 to the 3^rd Opposite Party  towards AMC for the period 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017 to the 3^rd Opposite Party. Yet again, he paid a sum of Rs.2,500 towards AMC for the period from 1.7.2017 to 30.6.2019 to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The AMC should be carried out once in a quarter from the date of entering into AMC with 3^rd Opposite Party. Whereas, the 3^rd Opposite Party had done AMC only once in a year instead of 4 AMCs per year and thereby violated the AMC entered with them and caused a financial loss of Rs.7,059/- paid by him towards AMC for the period from 1.7.2011 to 30.6.2019. The 3^rd Opposite Party had engaged M/s Ideas Services, 28 Jeevan Nagar, 2^nd  Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088, the 2^nd Opposite Party as their authorized service provider to conduct AMC for his refrigerator. He brought this to the notice of the 3^rd Opposite Party  through 2^nd Opposite Party when they called on him to conduct AMC on 5.6.2019 for the year 2019 and he refused to renew the AMC after 1.7.2019. Since the Opposite Parties 2 & 3 have not conducted AMC for every quarter as agreed the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 9.7.2019 by RPAD to the 3^rd Opposite Party which was acknowledged by them. The Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party had sent a reply dated 18.7.2019 to him and a cursory perusal of the said notice will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny both in law and facts.Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

The Opposite Parties submitted that the Refrigerator was purchased by the Complainant on 01.07.2010. It is submitted that the warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase for the functional parts of the Refrigerator and five years from the date of purchase for the compressor of the Refrigerator. Hence the warranty has long expired. Hence, there is no obligation on the part of the Opposite Parties after the expiry of the warranty period. Further, no liability can be fastened on the Opposite Parties after the expiry of the warrant period. The claim of the Complainant amounts to Rs. 7,059/- which comprises of

1. Rs.2,134/- for Annual Maintenance Contract for the period 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2015,
2. Rs.2,500/- for Annual Maintenance Contract for the period 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017 and
3. Rs.2,425/- for Annual Maintenance Contract for the period 02.07.2017 to 01.07.2019

The Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 29.07 2019 Therefore,  the claim under Item (1) and (ii) are barred by limitation.

 It is submitted that the Complainant had purchased a Refrigerator (Model Code No. RDO 262E, Model Description: GDE2381 Mexican Red. Appliance Number: Rdo 2E2B-100600589) on 01.07.2010. A Protection Plan was issued for one year from the date of purchase for the functional parts of the refrigerator and five years from the date of purchase for the compressor of the refrigerator. Along with the Protection Plan, the Complainant had also entered into an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with the Opposite Parties for the period from 02.07.2017 to 01.07.2019 in respect of the Refrigerator. As per the terms and conditions of the ANC, only one free service is to be provided by the Opposite Parties in respect of the Refrigerator and the same has been availed by the Complainant. However, the Complainant has now approached this Hon'ble Forum with a misconception that the AMC provided by the Opposite Parties will cover every quarter of the year from the date of entering into the AMC.

      In the aforesaid circumstances, it evident that there is no basis for the Complaint against the Opposite Parties. There is no deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties as wrongly alleged by the Complainant. In such circumstances, the relief of compensation as sought for by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9. The Opposite Parties submitted their Written Version and Proof Affidavit. On the side of Opposite Parties documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

The Complainant had purchased the Godrej Refrigerator bearing Model No.RDO2E2B, Model description: GDE 23 B1 Mexicon Red, Appliances No.RD O2E2B-100600589 on 01.07.2010 from the 1^st Opposite Party  as seen from Ex.A-1. As per Ex.A-2 the Complainant had entered into a service contract  with the 1^st Opposite Party for the period from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2015 in respect of the said refrigerator by paying a sum of Rs.2134/-. Subsequently the Complainant had availed AMC with the Opposite Party for 2 years from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017 on payment of Rs.2,500/-. Further the Complainant had availed AMC from 02.07.2017 to 01.07.2019 on payment of Rs.2425/- as per Ex.A-5. The Complainant submitted that the 3^rd Opposite Party is bound to conduct annual maintenance every quarter from the date of entering in to the contract of AMC. However the 3^rd Opposite Party has done annual maintenance only once in a year instead of 4 times in a year and thereby the Complainant claims financial loss of Rs.7059/- sustained by the Complainant towards AMC from the period for 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2019.

        The contention of the Opposite Parties is that the refrigerator was purchased by the Complainant on 01.07.2010, with a warranty of  one year from the date of purchase for the functional parts of the refrigerator and five years from the date of purchase for the compressor of the refrigerator. The claim for the period from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2015 and 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017 is barred by limitation. As per the terms and conditions of the AMC, only one free service is to be provided by the Opposite Party and the same was availed by the Complainant.

        The Complainant submitted that as per Ex.A-3,4,5 and 6 the Opposite Party is bound to conduct AMC once in a quarter during the period of AMC.  A perusal of the said Exhibits would reveal that the Opposite Party had not given any assurance of carrying out service every quarter during the period of AMC for Refrigerator. The Complainant himself admitted that the Opposite Party had provided service once in a year. It is also not the case of the Complainant that during the period of AMC the Opposite Party had not undertaken any service for the refrigerator on request by the Complainant. As there is no assurance given by the Opposite Parties to carry out service quarterly in a year as alleged by the Complainant and as there is no violation of the terms of the AMC entered by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. 

        In view of the above discussions we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Parties had not violated the Annual Maintenance Contract and no deficiency of service is attributable to the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered against the Complainant.

Point Nos.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 7^th of February 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	01.07.2010	Date of purchase 01.07.2010 invoice date 23.09.2014
Ex.A2	22.03.2011	Application form for AMC – Contract date 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2015. AMC amount paid Rs.2,134/-
Ex.A3&4	16.09.2014	AMC for the period 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017. amount paid s.2,500
Ex.A5&6	08.06.2017	AMC for theperiod 2017 to 01.07.2019 amount paid Rs.2,425
Ex.A7	05.06.2019	AMC visist date 05.06.2019
Ex.A8	09.07.2019	Legal notice by RPAD issued to Opposite Party and acknowledged
Ex.A9	18.07.2019	Reply received from Counsel for Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	02.07.2017 to 01.07.2019	Contract form
Ex,B2	07.06.2017	Application Form
Ex.B3	02.07.2015 to 01.07.2017	Contract form
Ex.B4	01.07.2010	Service contract/protection plan
Ex.B5	22.03.2011	Application from AMC-Contract Date 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2015
Ex.B6	16.09.2014	AMC for the period 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017
Ex.B7	08.06.2017	AMC for the period 02.07.2014 to 01.07.2019

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT