Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/20/2015

Chella Vamsi Krishna Reddy, S/o. Aswartha Narayana Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Ltd., By its Authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

15 Oct 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 23.05.2015

Order Date:15.10.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

SATURDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.20/2015

 

 

Between

 

 

Chella Vamsikrishna Reddy,

S/o. Aswartha Narayana Reddy,

Hindu, aged 40 years,

R/at: D.No.9-66/14, New Maruthi Nagar,

Tirupati.                                                                                                         … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         IFB Industries Ltd.,

            By its Authorised Signatory,

            Service Branch,

            1-55, Gandhi Nagar,

            K.B.Road,

            Tirupati – 517 507.

 

2.         IFB Industries.,

            Andhra Pradesh,

            By its Authorised Signatory,

            75-10-2, PVB Building,

            NTR Street,

            Bhavanipuram,

            Vijayawada – 520 012.

 

3.         IFB Industries Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, 

            Regd. Office 14, Taratolla Road,

            Kolkata – 700 088                                                               …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 29.09.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for complainant, and Sri.B.Murali Mohan, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections – 12 & 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties for the following reliefs  1) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to jointly and severally to refund the cost of the unit in a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-,  2) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and 3) to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant on 21.11.2014 purchased IFB Dish Washer Appliance by paying Rs.2,40,000/- from opposite party No.1 service branch at Tirupati. He also purchased detergent and rins aid for Rs.5,200/- and taken delivery with a warranty of one year under Ex.A3 (Invoice dt:21.11.2014). Under the warranty card, it is specifically mentioned that any part of Dish Washer found defective within the warranty period they shall be replaced or repaired free of charges on the intimation to the company or to the authorized service centre.

            3.  The appliance was installed on 24.11.2014 by the authorized person of the opposite party No.1. While testing the unit, it was not functioning properly. However, it was assured that it will be set-righted within one or two days and the persons installed the unit were left. Since then though the appliance was handled by a professional, it’s functioning is improper because of which scratches on the tea cups could not be wiped-out. It was brought to the notice of opposite party No.1, but in vain. The complainant lodged a complaint by e-mail on 14.12.2014 to the Customer Service @ IFB Global-cum- and the same was registered as 14521597 by noting the customer ID No.10005820. The complainant got issued reminder on 16.12.2014 to the Customer Care, who expressed regrets through e-mail dt:22.12.2014 and further informed that the matter was escalated to their branch to attend. On 26.12.2014, Mr.Rajiv and Mr.Praveen, authorized persons of IFB came to the complainant, brought new tea cups for testing, but the problem remains as it is. Therefore, the complainant sent e-mail dt:28.12.2014 requesting the Customer Care with a request to replace the unit or to refund its cost. The complainant again sent e-mail on 11.01.2015, a Service Engineer Mr. Venkatesh from Bangalore came to the unit and stayed for 3 days from 26.01.2015 to 28.01.2015 and tested the unit, but he could not resolve the problem even by changing the detergent. He intimated the same to the Customer Service on 03.02.2015.

            4.  On 05.02.2015 one K.T.Ramesh, a Customer Service Manager of URO Tech Group, made several changes in the machine, but could not resolve the problem, as a result, machine is laying idle. Despite several e-mails sent by the complainant in the month of February 2015, opposite parties did not respond properly. Complainant got issued legal notice on 11.03.2015 demanding the opposite parties to refund the cost of the unit of Rs.2,40,000/-, as they could not solve the problem during the warranty period. For the legal notice sent by the complainant, opposite party No.2 sent reply on 04.04.2015. The complainant sent rejoinder to opposite party No.2 on 20.04.2015, it was returned unclaimed. Till date the problem was not rectified by the opposite parties and did not make refund of the cost of the machine. Hence the complaint.

            5.  Opposite party No.1 filed the written version and the same was adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have denied parawise allegations in the complaint and further contended that the subject Industrial Dish Washer was sold to M/s. Café, Tirupati, but not to the complainant, as such the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute is not a consumer dispute. That the Dish Washer is taken for commercial purpose and referred some cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court viz. in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industries, and another decision viz. Kalpa Vruksha Charitable Trust Vs.Toshniwal Bros., and stated that the complaint is not maintainable. They further contended that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint, as the Dish Washer was purchased by Café, Tirupati. That the management of Café Tirupati, not followed the guidelines of the manual. The complainant is negligent in operating the Dish Washer in question. Due to the negligence and recklessness, complainant with a supine indifference, to suffer the opposite parties and to get the opposite parties to its dictates for refund of the amount. Complainant is not entitled for refund, as there is no such condition to refund the cost of the unit. The opposite parties further contended that the technical staff of the opposite parties attended several times to test the industrial dish washer supplied to the Café Tiruapti and found the unit functioning well and there is no deficiency either in functioning or quality in washing. The management of Café Tirupati did not engage experienced staff to operate the dishwasher. The dishwasher was not defective and is functioning well. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in any manner and complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.  

            6.  In support of the case of the complainant, he himself filed the chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A22. For the opposite parties R.W.1 filed chief affidavit and no documents were marked. Commissioner report is marked as Ex.C1.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the dishwasher in question gives troubles and the said troubles

       were rectified by the opposite parties within the warranty period? 

(ii)  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

(iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

(iv)  To what relief?

8.  Point No.(i):- in order to answer this point, it is pertinent to refer warranty card under Ex.A5, wherein it is specifically mentioned that “during 12 months from the date of purchase of the new industrial dishwasher all the parts of the industrial dishwasher, which prove to be defective in workmanship and / or materials shall be replaced or repaired free of charge on intimation to the company / company’s authorized service centre nearest to the place where the appliance is installed. This warranty is subject to limitations of warranty”. Limitations 1 to 8 were given in the warranty card. The objections raised by the opposite parties in respect of functioning of the unit comes to limitation 1.c) i.e. “if the appliance is not used in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions given in the operating manual”. It was not mentioned anywhere in the pleadings of the opposite parties or the affidavit of R.W.1 or in their written arguments that, who is maintaining the unit and what are the defects in maintaining the unit by the complainant and it was also not mentioned that proper experienced person was not appointed for running the machinery. 

9.  Un-disputedly, the industrial dishwasher was purchased by the complainant, being the Manager of Kafé Tirupati on 21.11.2014 from opposite party No.1, as per invoice under Ex.A3 dt:21.11.2014 by paying Rs.2,40,000/-, that the unit was installed by the authorized persons of the opposite party No.1 on 24.11.2014. It was also mentioned in the pleadings as well as evidence affidavit of the complainant that on the date of installation itself while testing the functioning of the unit by the persons, who installed the dishwasher, it was found not running properly. The authorized persons, who installed the unit assured the complainant that it will be rectified within 1 or 2 days and left the place (this version was not denied by the opposite parties). The warranty period of one year is from the date of purchase of the dishwasher i.e. from 21.11.2014 to 20.11.2015. Defects observed 1) on the date of installation (24.11.2014) itself it was found that the dishwasher was not functioning properly, 2) complainant lodged complaint through e-mail on 14.12.2014 (within 20 days from the date of installation) to the Customer Service @ IFB Global –cum- and his complaint was registered as 14521597 by noting the customer ID No.10005820 (not disputed), 3) as there was no response from opposite parties, complainant gave reminder on 16.12.2014, on which it was informed to the complainant that the matter was escalated to their branch to attend, as per e-mail dt:22.12.2014, through which opposite parties expressed regrets for causing inconvenience to the complainant, 4) on 26.12.2014, on telephonic conversation, one IFB authorized person by name Mr.Rajiv and Mr.Praveen, came and requested the complainant to bring new cups for testing. Accordingly new cups were brought, even then the problem i.e. residue and stains on the cups could not be wiped-off by the machine and the problem was not solved, 5) complainant sent e-mail on 28.12.2014 to the Customer Care with a request either to replace the unit or to refund the cost of the unit, as the unit was remained unused due to non-functioning,  6) again on 11.01.2015 one Mr.Venkatesh, Service Engineer from Bangalore visited the unit, stayed for 3 days from 26.01.2015 to 28.01.2015, but he also could not solve the problem, even by changing the chemicals of detergent of Johnson Company instead of IFB product and the fact was intimated to the Customer Service on 03.02.2015, 7) again on 05.02.2015 on telephonic conversation one K.T.Ramesh, a Customer Service Manager of URO Tech Group arrived and made several changes in the said machine, but the problem could not be solved, as a result, the unit is laying without any use. Vexed with their inaction, complainant sent e-mails on 07.02.2015, 20.02.2015 and 21.02.2015 expressing his mental tension and depression complaining that the Company is not responding properly in rectifying the defects within the warranty period. Finally, on 11.03.2015, he also got issued notice to the opposite parties 1 to 3, which was delivered on the opposite parties 1 to 3, but they remained un-complied with the problem. Thus, the defects were pointed out 7 times within the warranty period. Though on some occasions, the authorized technicians and Service Engineer etc. were attended on the machinery, the problem was not solved and it remains as it is. Even according to the Commissioner Report under Ex.C1, it was mentioned that 24 Nos. of new cups were tested repeatedly. After few washes (approximately 6 to 8 washes),  stains and residues were found on some of the cups as shown in the photographs filed along with the Commissioner Report. Based on the above observations, the Commissioner opined that “the functioning of the dishwasher is not satisfactory”. The Commissioner visited the unit and executed the warrant in the presence of both parties and their counsel and finally he opined that dishwasher functioning is not satisfactory. The opposite parties 1 to 3 could not solve the problem though it was arose within the warranty period. That apart opposite parties in their written version, evidence affidavit of R.W.1 and also in the written arguments, admitted that their technicians and Service Engineer attended the problem on several occasions, which itself shows that the machinery was defective, otherwise there is no need to attend on the machinery on several occasions. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the machine (industrial dishwasher) was found defective, but the opposite parties could not resolve / rectify the defects from 24.11.2014, till February 2015 i.e. within a span of 4 months from the date of purchase of the dishwasher, several times complaints were lodged by the complainant with regard to pointing-out the defects in the machine i.e. dishwasher. Very particularly on the date of installation itself the machinery was found running improperly, for which the authorized persons who installed the machinery believed the complainant that it will be rectified within one or two days, but the problem was continued till date. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the machinery is found defective and the opposite parties failed to rectify those defects till date. The complainant is, therefore, entitled for refund of the cost of the machinery, as the performance of the machinery is defective and unsatisfactory. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10.  Point No.(ii):-  in view of the discussion under point No.1, with regard to defects in the machinery right from the date of installation itself and non-rectification of those defects or non-replacing of the defective parts of the machinery and finally since the opposite parties remained un-attended even after receiving legal notice under Ex.A16, we are constrained to state that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, because of which the complainant being a consumer suffered a lot from 24.11.2014, till date. The objections raised by the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer cannot be accepted, as it was specifically mentioned that he purchased the machinery i.e. dishwasher in his Kafé to reduce the financial burden by not appointing several persons for washing the dishes and for eek-out his livelihood. The machinery was not used for any other commercial purpose, that means he is not lending-out the machinery for lease or to any other person on rental basis. The complainant himself using the machinery in his Kafé. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer well within the meaning of Section-2(i)(d) of the C.P.Act, and the dispute is a consumer dispute. It appears that the opposite parties have supplied the machinery to the complainant / consumer on 21.11.2014 and installed the same on 24.11.2014 on which date itself the machinery was found running improperly, but such defect was not rectified by the opposite parties, though admittedly they attended on it several times within the warranty period. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, for which opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the complainant. Accordingly, this point is answered.       

11. Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion made under points 1 and 2, and the facts discussed supra coupled with Exs.A1 to A22 and Ex.C1 Commissioner Report, it is found that dishwasher is not functioning properly right from the date of installation, it was not meddled by any other third parties for running the machinery. According to complainant, it was handled by a professional and an experienced person, inspite of which the machinery could not run and its services cannot be make use of by the complainant in his Kafé. The another point raised by the opposite parties is that they have supplied the machinery “in the name of “Kafe Tirupati” but not in the name of complainant” cannot sustain.  Ex.A2 Certificate of Registration issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, in which it was mentioned the name of the employer as C.Vamsi Krishna Reddy, the complainant herein. Under Ex.A3 Tax Invoice cum Challan in the buyer delivery address it was mentioned as KAFE Tirupati, 19-9-29/C, Near Sankarambadi Circle, Tir. Road, Tirupati, the same address was also mentioned under Ex.A2 Certificate of Registration. Nature of business is also mentioned as Hotel. Therefore, with regard to ownership is concerned there cannot be any dispute, as such the objection raised by the opposite parties in this regard cannot be sustained. Since the complainant, who purchased the industrial dishwasher under Ex.A3 in the name of Kafe Tirupati, being the employer of the said Kafé, is entitled to receive the reliefs sought for, as the owner of the Kafé / Hotel, which is being maintained by the complainant for his livelihood. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant being the Owner / Manager / Employer of the said Kafé, Tirupati, is entitled to the reliefs sought for and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

12. Point No.(v):-  in view of our discussion under points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the defects  in the dishwasher are detected within the warranty period i.e. right from the date of installation itself and inspite of several representations through e-mails, as referred to above and personal representations made by the complainant, the said problem could not be solved and even according to Commissioner Report under Ex.C1 functioning of the machinery was not satisfactory. Similarly, the opposite parties could not rectify the defects in the machinery supplied by them and though those defects i.e. stains and residue on the used cups could not be wiped-out by the machinery, by its functioning, the said defects could not be resolved by the opposite parties though they have deputed their Service Engineer and Technicians to attend on the machinery several times (within the warranty period), as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, because of which the complainant suffered mental agony and inconvenience in carrying his business and complaint is, therefore, to be allowed.

In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund the cost of the machinery i.e Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization and take back the defective dishwasher from the complainant. In this regard, complainant is also directed to return / handover the machinery to the opposite parties immediately after receipt of payment of cost of the machinery. The opposite parties 1 to 3 also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also for causing mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 to 3 also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The opposite parties 1 to 3 further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.                                

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 15^th day of October, 2016.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                   

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT.

 

PW-1: Chella Vamsikrishna Reddy (Chief affidavit filed).

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

RW-1: M. Rajeev Gandhi (Chief affidavit filed).

 

                 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.

EXHIBITS (EX.A)	DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
	Photo copy of Second School Certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education, A.P. in favour of the complainant C.Vamsikrishna Reddy. Dt: 09.11.1990.
	Photo copy of Certificate of Registration under Shops and Establishment Act 1988 to the shop of KAFE TIRUPATI. Dt: 24.01.2014.
	Customer (Photo) copy of  Tax Invoice- cum- challan issued by the Opposite Party No.1 towards the purchase of Industrial Dishwahser ProTech 810 for Rs.2,40,000/-. Dt: 21.11.2014.
	Photo copy of Tax Invoice-cum-challan issued by Opposite Party No.1 towards the purchase of detergent etc. for Rs.5, 200/-. Dt: 22.11.2014.
	Photo copy of Warranty Conditions. Dt: 29.11.2014.
	Photo copy of E-mail to the customerservice@ifbglobal.com by the Complainant. Dt: 14.12.2014.
	Photo copy of remainder by E-mail by the complainant. Dt: 16.12.2014.
	Photo copy of E-mail from IFB Customer Service regretting for the inconvenience to the complainant etc. Dt: 22.12.2014.
	Photo copy of E-mail to the customer service@ ifbglobal.com.  Dt: 28.12.2014.
	Photo copy of E-mail to the Customer Service demanding to refund the costs of the Unit. Dt: 11.01.2015.
	Photo copy of E-mail as a remainder to the Customer Service. Dt: 03.02.2015.
	Photo copy of remainder to the Customer Service. Dt: 07.02.2015.
	Another copy of remainder to the Customer Service. Dt: 20.02.2015.
	Another copy of remainder to the Customer Service. Dt: 21.02.2015.
	Another copy of remainder to the Customer Service. Dt: 25.02.2015.
	Office copy of Legal Notice to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 with postal acknowledgements of Opposite Parties Nos. 2 & 3. Dt: 11.03.2015.
	Office copy of letter to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati to intimate whether the registered letter served on the Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 31.03.2015.
	Reply from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati intimating the delivery of registered letter to the Opposite Party No.1 on 11.03.2015. Dt: 30.04.2015.
	Reply from the Opposite Party No.2. Dt: 04.04.2015.
	Rejoinder to the Opposite Party No.2 by the Complainant. Dt: 20.04.2015.
	Registered Cover to Opposite Party No.2 returned as undelivered. Dt: 30.04.2015.
	Photo copy of rejoinder sent to the Opposite Party Dt: 20.04.2015  by Professional Courier Service. Dt: 21.05.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-NIL-

 

COMMISSIONER REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

 

EXHIBITS (EX.C)	DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
1.	Commissioner Report filed by the Advocate Commissioner.

 

                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

           

              // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

            

          

 

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.