Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/37

Smt. Rinku Sarkar Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. And Others - Opp.Party(s)

S.Debnath, S.Pandit

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  37 of 2014

Rinku Sarkar(Dey),
W/O- Sri Koushik Dey,
West Joynagar,
Agartala, West Tripura.        ...............Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

      1. Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd.,
         Unit No. 301-302, 3rd Floor,
         Park Centre, Sector 30,
         N.H-8, Gurgaon, 
         Haryana- 122001.

           2. M/S M.P.S. Trading Group,
Sales cum godown,
37, Thakurpalli Road, 
Krishnanagar, Agartala,
West Tripura.         ............Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         :  Sri Sukanta Debnath  
                  Advocate. 
                           
For the O.P. No. 1           : Sri Suman Bhattacharya,
                  Advocate.

For the O.P. No. 2        : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,
                  Advocate.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   05.10.15

J U D G M E N T    

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Smt. Rinku Sarkar(Dey), W/O- Sri Koushik Dey of West Joynagar, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. and M/S  M.P.S. Trading Group, over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.        
2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that on 07.09.12 the complainant had purchased  Rubella 90 Chimney from the O.P. No.2, M/S M.P.S. Trading Group for an amount of Rs.17,990/-. As per rules, the said chimney had warranty for the period of 12 months starting from the date of purchase. It is alleged that just after one and a half months of purchase the said chimney stopped functioning completely. Then the complainant immediately reported the matter to the O.P. No.2 who was then also the authorized service centre of the products manufactured by the O.P. No.1. She was repeatedly informed by the O.P. No.2 that the defect of the chimney could not be removed as spare parts were not available with them. So, the O.P. No.2 requested her to wait for 15/20 days. The complainant visited the service centre ran by the O.P. No.2 on a number of occasions but the defect of the chimney could not be rectified due to non-receipt of the required spare parts from the O.P. No.1, company. Finding no other alternative, the complainant served a legal notice upon the O.Ps No.1 and  2 for their failure to repair the product purchased by her from the O.P. No.2 within the currency of warranty. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.
3.        The complaint was contested by the O.Ps resisting the claim made by the complainant.
        The O.P. No.1, Hindustan Sanitaryware Industries Ltd., the manufacturer of the product, in their written objection, stated, interalia, that the complainant never informed her grievance to them during currency of warranty period. After expiry of the warranty period she issued legal notice to them demanding replacement of product in question along with Rs.65,000/- as compensation without giving them any opportunity to inspect the product. She is not entitled to claim the benefit of warranty as she complained about non-functioning of the product after expiry of the period of warranty. As per rule, after expiry period of warranty the complainant is to avail paid services from the O.P. It is denied that the product suffered from any inherent mechanical  defect. It is also asserted that since 11.10.12 the O.P. No.1 discontinued its business with the O.P. No.2 as they defaulted in making payment against the products purchased from the O.P. No.1 on credit. Therefore, the O.P. No.1 is not responsible for the action or inaction of the O.P. No.2. It is denied that the O.P. No.1 was negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner what so ever.

4.        The O.P. No.2, in his written objection, admitted the fact that the complainant had purchased the Rubella 90 Chimney manufactured by the O.P. No.1 from their firm on 07.09.12 and within one and a half months of purchase the said chimney went out of order. It is also admitted that the complainant placed the defective chimney with their service centre for rectification of defect but due to non-receipt of spare parts from the O.P. No.1 they could not put the defective chimney in order. It is alleged that they gave requisition to the O.P. No.1 on a number of occasions for sending required spare parts to remove the defect of the product purchased by various customers but the O.P. No.1 did not supply the spare parts on demand. It is asserted by the O.P. No.2 that the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment due to lapses of the O.P. No.1. It is denied that they were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant. 
5.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined herself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-
    Exhibit 1- Chalan dated 07.09.12,
    Exhibit 2- Warranty card,
    Exhibit 3 - Advocate's Notice,
    Exhibit 4- Letter of the complainant addressed to the O.P. no.2.        
6.        On the other hand, one Smt. Monomita Karmakar, State Service In-charge of O.P. No.1, has examined herself as O.P.W.1. No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.P. No.1.
7.        One Sri Kalyan Dey, Proprietor of the O.P. No.2, has examined himself as O.P.W. 2 and has proved and exhibited the documents filed by him vide firisti dated 24.03.15 as exhibit A series.

        FINDINGS:
8.        The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
9.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously. 
10.        There is no manner of dispute that the complainant had purchased one Rubella 90 Chimney manufactured by the O.P. No.1, the Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. and the O.P. No.2 was then the distributor and authorized service centre of the products manufactured by the O.P. No.1. It is the plea of the O.P. No.1 that they  discontinued business with the O.P. No.2 since 11.10.12 and hence they had no liability for the action or inaction of O.P. No.2. Exhibit-1, challan indicates that the complainant had purchased the product on 07.09.12 for Rs.17,990/- from the distributor(O.P. No.2) appointed by the O.P. No.1 for the state of Tripura. The averments made by the O.P. No.1 in its pleading found to be discrepant with the statement made by the O.P.W.1, Smt. Monomita Karmakar, State Service In-charge of O.P. No.1. The O.P.W. 1, during cross examination on behalf of the O.P. No.2, stated that by a letter dated 29.11.12, the O.P. No.2 give requisition to her for sending spare parts but she expressed her inability to supply the same free of cost without getting details of the customers for whom the spare parts were required. It is not understandable to us as to how the O.P. No.1 could receive requisition from the O.P. No.2 on 29.11.12 to supply spare parts to remove defects of the products purchased by various customers if the O.P. No.2 was not the authorized distributor of the O.P. No.1 since 11.10.12 as alleged. In this situation, we can not accept the plea of the O.P. No.1 that since 11.10.12 the O.P. No.2 was not the distributor for the state of Tripura of the products manufactured by the O.P. No.1.

11.        The complainant in her pleading as well as evidence has categorically stated that after one and a half months of purchase of the kitchen chimney it started giving trouble and she brought this fact to the notice of the O.P. no.2. But he could not rectify the defect of the product as inspite of repeated requisitions the O.P. No.1 did not supply the spare parts which were required to put the product in operation. This fact has also received corroboration from the pleadings and evidence adduced by the O.P.W.2. During cross examination, the O.P.W.1 admitted the fact of receiving requisition for spare parts from the O.P. No.2. From the documents on record it shows that the O.P. No.2 was appointed as distributor for the state of Tripura of the products manufactured by the O.P. No.1 and in case of necessity he was empowered to render emergency service to the products purchased by the customers. There is no document on record to suggest when the appointment of O.P. No.2 as distributor was cancelled. 
12.        It is the assertion of the O.P. No.1 that the complainant never informed them as to the defect of the product purchased by her. The company came to know about her complaint for the first time on 14.03.14 after receipt of the legal notice. Since the complainant approached them after expiry of the period of warranty, she is not entitled to replacement of the product or any compensation for violation of the terms of warranty.
13.        It appears that the complainant had purchased the product from the authorized agent of O.P. No.1 and she complained about non-functioning of the product to the O.P. No.2 during currency of warranty. This has been clearly admitted by the O.P. No.2 in his pleading and while giving evidence as O.P.W.2. The complainant informed the O.P. No.2 as to the non-functioning of the product mainly for the reason that she had purchased the product from the O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1 being the principal can not escape from the liability for the action and inaction of his agent. The O.P. No.2 being the distributor of the product also can not escape the responsibility on the pretext that he did not receive the required spare parts from the O.P. No.1. At the time of selling the product it was never stipulated by him that the defect, if any, to be appeared in the product sold to the customers would be rectified only on receipt of spare parts from the O.P. No.1, company. We have no doubt in our mind that the business relationship between the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.2 became strained during the year 2012. The reason for such strained relationship is best known to them. For that matter, the customers who in good faith purchased the products manufactured by the O.P. No.1 from the O.P. No.2(distributor) can not be made to suffer for no fault of them. 
14.        It is well settled that if an agent acts within the scope of its authority, the principal is bound by the act of his agents. Moreover, a party is responsible for any action or inaction by the party's agent. The acts of the agent are considered to be the acts of the principal. It is based upon the concept of vicarious liability. 
15.         For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the considered opinion that both the manufacturer (O.P. No.1) and distributor(O.P. No.2) of the product are equally negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant and hence they are to be fastened with the burden of paying compensation to the complainant jointly and severally.    

16.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. We direct the O.P.s No.1 and 2 to jointly and severally make payment of Rs.17,990/- to the complainant as the price of the defective Rubella 90 Chimney. In addition, they will pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to the complainant for mental agony and harassment with Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) as costs of litigation. They will pay the aforesaid amount within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full.  

17.                   A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.