Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/341/2013

C.V.Rajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Karthik, Mukundan, Neelakantan

23 Dec 2021

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                           Date of Complaint Filed: 28.10.2013

                                                                                                                                                           Date of Reservation: 23.11.2021

                                                                                                                                                           Date of Order: 23.12.2021

                                                                                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:

 

                  Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.                                  : President

                 Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                                           : Member

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.341/2013

 

THURSDAY, THE 23^rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                                

C.V.Rajan,

New No.24, Old No.18, TTK Road,

1^st Cross Street,

Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.                                                              .. Complainant.                                                              ..Versus..

1.The Managing Director,

    M/s.IBF Industries limited,

    14, Taratolla Road, Calcutta 700088.

 

2.The General Manager, IFB Industries Limited,

   Home Appliances Division,

   Old No.37, New No.6, Arcot Road,

   Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.

 

3.The General Manager, M/s.KGS Enterprises,

   (Franchisee IFB Industries limited)

   No.185,Vinayaga Nagar, Katchery Road,

   Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.                                                      ..  Opposite parties.

******

Counsel for the complainant                            : M/s.Karthik, Adv.

Counsel for the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties     : M/s.V.T.Narendiran, Advocate.

Counsel the 3^rd opposite party                        : Ex-parte

 

On perusal of both side records and having heard the oral argument of complainant we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.

 

The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection Act 1986 for seeking direction to replace the dishwasher machine and to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for unfair trade practice, negligence, deficiency in service and for the mental agony caused to the complainant with cost.

2. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked and written argument filed.  While so, on the side of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties proof affidavit submitted as their evidence, document Ex.B1 was marked and written argument filed but oral argument not adduced.  However written argument of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties is treated as oral argument. Though notice duly served to the 3^rd opposite party he did not to file his version and hence he was set ex-parte.

            3. The averments of the complaint in brief:-

Complainant had purchased an IFB dish washer (DW Neptune) dated 30.06.2008 from the 1^st opposite party through their branch office located at 4E, GEE GEE Minar, No.23, Collage Road, Chennai  - 600 006. Initial warranty period is two years. Thereafter complainant entered in the annual maintenance contract (AMC) with the 2^nd opposite party on 18.08.2010.  The AMC is being renewed every year and as on day the AMC is valid till 08.12.2013.  The said AMC is undertaken and discharge by the 3^rd opposite party, a franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party.

4. The complainant lodged complaint No10577796 on 12.06.2013 in the call centre of the 1^st opposite party, reporting leakage of water from the dish washer.   This was followed by another complaint on 20.06.2013.  A technician of the 3^rd opposite party inspected the dish washer and told that a Gasket to be changed.  The technician further assured that the same would be done very shortly, preferably within a week time. Thereafter, there was no response from the 3^rd opposite party.  Then the complainant lodged another complaint dated 06.08.2013 to the call centre on the same issue.  Again one technician once again inspected and he could not rectify the defect due to non availability of the gasket.  The technician informed that the spare part is not readily available and order has been placed. He assured the complainant that immediate action would be taken to secure the spare part and rectified the problem in the machine. However no action was taken by the 3^rd opposite party.  Complainant made further complaint for the same issue on 10.08.2013 and13.08.2013. On 14.08.2013 the representative of the 3^rd opposite party by name Mr. Ganesh inspected the machine.  Instead of undertaking repairs by changing the gasket as he strongly recommended that the machine may be disposed off in exchange and a new dish washer IFB Neptune DX” may be bought. But he claimed more money than the price found in the website. Hence the complainant insisted to rectify the existing dish washer.  However the above said technician did not do so, citing lame excuses.  Again complainant lodge complaint on 28.12.2013 but no fruitful result was happened. Hence this complaint is filed.

5. Written version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in brief:-

It is admitted that the complainant has purchased the dish washed and also entered into AMC and he had renewed the same every year.  The complainant has filed documents only the copies of the front side of the receipts/invoices in his typed set of documents and has suppressed the terms and conditions of the AMC printed in the backside of the invoice cum receipts, wherein the condition contained clearly state that rubber parts are not covered under AMC. The opposite parties representative had gone inspected the machine based on the complaint made by the complainant, it is seen that the same was due to gasket, which admittedly rubber part and hence excluded under AMC and it was informed to the complainant and he was to let that the same would be replaced on free of cost as the same was not covered by the AMC.

6. The opposite party denied the story of the exchange of the dish washer.  The opposite party submits that under AMC their liability is only maintaining/repairing the machine, therefore the question of replacing the machine as sought by the complainant is not justified.  Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

7.The points for consideration are:-

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

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

8.Point No.1:-

Ex.B1 is the invoice cum receipts for AMC from the period 19.12.2012 to 18.12.2013 for the subject matter of dish washer.  On the backside of the receipts the terms and conditions are printed in respect of annual maintenance contract/extended warranty/annual service charges.  Clause 16 of the terms and conditions is read as follows “the contract is comprehensive in nature and it includes labor and all components (not accessories). However the following components are excluded.

1. Cabinets,

2. Aesthetic Materials.

3. Rubber Materials/Plastic pipes.

(Note: Rust/paint peel off/damages due to rodents/pests are not covered under this contract)

 

9. In this case it is an admitted fact that the gasket alone is the problem for replacement.  Gasket is made of rubber only.  As per the terms and conditions the rubber materials will not cover under AMC.  However it is the duty of the opposite parties to replace the gasket on receiving cost from the complainant.  Even after filing written version by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, complainant has not denied that the gasket will not cum under the preview of AMC.  Further he has not given any assurance that he will bear the cost of the Gasket if the opposite party replaces the same. Apart from that complainant furnished the documents especially the invoice cum receipts of the annual maintenance for the year 2012-2013 dated 19.12.2012 of the front page only.  He purposely suppressed the backside of the invoice cum receipt which contains terms and conditions of the annual maintenance contract /extended warranty.  Therefore we found that the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands.  Apart from that as stated above replacement of gasket will not cover under the AMC. Hence we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

10.Point Nos.2&3:-

We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in this complaint. Accordingly point Nos.2&3 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission, on this the 23^rd day of December 2021.

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                  R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

Ex.A1	30.06.2008	Invoice No. sale/CHE/2640/08-09 dated 30.06.2008 issued by the 1st op for purchase of IFB Dishwasher.	Xerox
Ex.A2	18.08.2010	AMC entered into by and between the complainant and the 1nd op for AMC valid up to 17.08.2011	Xerox
Ex.A3	07.09.2011	AMC entered into by and between the complainant and the 1nd op for AMC valid up to 06.09.2012.	Xerox
Ex.A4	19.11.2012	AMC entered into by and between the complainant and the 1nd op for AMC valid up to 18.12.2013	Xerox
Ex.A5	29.08.2013	Legal notice issued by the complainant to the op	Xerox
Ex.A6		Acknowledgement.	Xerox

 

List of document filed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties:-

Ex.B1

07.09.2011

Invoice cum receipt

Xerox

 

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                  R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT