Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/253/2016

M.Mary Preena - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Nirmal Ray Sanjeevi

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 13.06.2016

Date of Reservation      : 29.07.2022

Date of Order               : 29.08.2022

 

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.253 /2016

MONDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mrs. M. Mary Preena,

H64/F4, Kurinji Flats,

Thiruvalluvar Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai-600041.                                                               ... Complainant                              

 

..Vs..

1.IFB Industries Ltd,

   Represented by it's Managing Director,

   Home Appliances Division,

   14, Taratolla Road ,

   Kolkata-700088.

   West Bengal

 

2.IFB Point,

   Represented by it's Proprietor,

   Ta Tech Arena,

   No.21A, Shop No.1,Sardar Patel Road,

   Adyar,

   Chennai-600020.                                                     ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. Nirmal Roy Sanjeevi

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party   : M/s. D. Abdullah

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party   : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and having treated the Written Arguments of the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party as oral arguments,  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 refund a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards advance received by the Respondent along with interest @15% p.a and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards metal agony and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost.

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

The Complainant visited the showroom of the 2^nd Opposite Party on 04.07.2014. The 2^nd Opposite Party showed the Complainant's various brands and models of dishwashing machines available. From the description of features and specifications of the dishwashing machines displayed and explained, the Complainant expressed her desire to purchase a Neptune VX which the 2^nd Opposite Party informed her that it would cost about Rs.33,000/-. The Complainant decided to purchase the IFB Neptune VX model however on specific assurance given to her by the 2^nd Opposite Party that a brand new piece of the dishwashing machine would be safely delivered to her residence within 48 hours of her paying the advance of Rs.15,000/-.The Complainant was also assured by the 2^nd Opposite Party that delivery would be scheduled at a time after checking the Complainant's availability and convenience at her residence. The Complainant immediately made a payment of Rs.15,000/- by cash and the 2^nd Opposite Party had given her an invoice dated 04.07.2014 with No.215 with an assurance that a fresh piece would be delivered to her within 48 hours. The Complainant had also given her address and mobile number to the staff of the 2^nd Respondent to facilitate contact and delivery of the dish washing machine. As promised at the time of purchase, the Complainant expected the 2nd Opposite Party to check her availability and convenience at her residence before effecting delivery of the machine as every showroom does. However there was no call from the second Opposite Party. At about 6.00 p.m. On 05.07.2014, the Complainant was shocked and surprised to find the Respondent's delivery people had carelessly left a washing machine at the ground floor entrance of the Apartment Complex of her Flat. The sales person himself who had come for delivery and apologized that he could not bring the dish washer upstairs to Complainant's residence, since the delivery person left with the share auto that bought the dish washer, due to their internal issues.  When she paid the advance, she clearly explained to the Respondent's salesperson that she stayed on the first floor however in total disregard to the same the Respondent's delivery people had just come and dumped the dishwasher at the ground floor. she had to find and hire local labour paying Rs.300/- and to carry the badly packed machine to her residence on the first floor of the flats. When the Complainant opened the package it was falling apart. The Complainant was further shocked to find the packing material inside missing with the exception of the cardboard cover and the dishwasher resembled the display piece shown to her at the time of paying the advance. The body of machine bore some scratch marks in some places and the Complainant was not sure whether the same was in a working condition. The Respondent had sent the Complainant the demo piece and not a fresh piece as promised. When the Complainant called on the showroom manager and checked with him, he admitted to the same and agreed that the machine was the display piece. The Complainant conveyed to the Respondent that she could not have further dealings with the Opposite Party due to loss of confidence in the kind of machine they sent her and the careless manner in which the same was delivered. The Complainant called the showroom manager and asked him to refund the money as delivering a demo/display piece is not a done thing when a customer advances money for a fresh piece. Admitting to the shortcomings, he agreed to have the refund sent to the Complainant's address shortly. Immediately thereafter on 05.07.2014 the 2^nd Opposite Party's delivery people came and collected the dish washer. However since 15.07.2014 the Complainant had still not received the money, the Complainant called the 2^nd Opposite Party, and the showroom manager of the 2^nd Opposite Party abused the Complainant and threatened her, using unparliamentarily and offensive words. Despite the Complainant requesting the refund of the advance payment the 2^nd Opposite Party did not return the advance payment. On 31.7.2014 by registered post to the 2^nd Opposite Party narrating the facts and requesting refund of advance amount of Rs.15,000/-. The 2^nd Opposite Party received the letter but did not care to either return the advance amount or reply to her request. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The 2^nd Opposite Party is one of the authorised dealers of the 1st Opposite Party acting on a principal to principal basis. The 1^st Opposite Party sells the goods to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 2^nd  Opposite Party sells the goods on the arrangement that it feels appropriate. The 1^st  Opposite Party does not have any knowledge about the happenings between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party. The averments made in the complaint are subject to the matters exclusively within the knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant is put to strict proof thereof. Further with regard to the averments made that the dish washing machine delivered was a piece displayed at the showroom, that the 2^nd Opposite Party took back the same without refunding the cost of washing machine is concerned the 1^st Opposite Party is not aware of the same and the matter is exclusively between the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Complainant. The Complaint is not one related to the quality of the dish washing machine manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party. The complaint is only about the conduct and service of the 2nd Opposite party relating to delivery of a display piece and non refund of the price received by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party cannot be held liable for the actions of the 2^nd  Opposite Party and the same does not bind the 1^st Opposite Party for the reason the 2^nd Opposite Party is not an agent of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Complainant has sought for relief against the 2^nd Opposite Party only and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the 1^st  Opposite Party.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 were marked. The 1^st Opposite Party      submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 1^st Opposite Party no document was marked.

5.      The 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice to them and hence was called absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration

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

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

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

Point No.1:-

On perusal of Ex.A-1 it is evident that the Complainant had paid advance amount of Rs.15,000/-on 04.07.2014 to the 2^nd Opposite Party for the purchase of brand new dishwashing machine of IFB Neptune VX model, out of the total price of Rs.33,000/-.The contention of the Complainant is that, the Opposite Party had agreed to deliver the dish washing machine within 48 hours to her address. The 2^nd Opposite Party without checking her availability and convenience at her residence before effecting delivery had on 05.07.2014 left the washing machine on the ground floor entrance of the Apartment complex of the Complainant, when the Complainant had explained that she resides in the first floor. However the delivery person of the 2^nd Opposite Party had dumped the washing machine of the ground floor for which the Complainant had to pay Rs.300/- as labour charges to carry the packed machine to the first floor of her flat. On opening the packing the Complainant found that the washing machine had scratch marks in some places which resembled the demo piece. When she contacted the show room manager he had admitted it to be the demo piece. The Complainant had sought for refund of money due to loss of confidence on the Opposite Party. Immediately on 05.07.2014 the 2^nd Opposite Party had collected the dish washing machine but failed to refund the advance amount. Hence the Complainant had issued a legal notice dated 31.07.2014 to refund the advance amount of Rs.15,000/-, after receipt of which the Opposite Party failed to respond as found in Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3.

The 2^nd Opposite party having received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance towards the dish washing machine has not delivered the same to the Complainant as agreed. Even after receiving  the legal notice dated 31.07.2014 the 2^ndOpposite Party has not come forward to give a reply or refund the said amount. Hence the act of the 2^nd Opposite party in not delivering the product as agreed and causing monetary loss to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service. As the  case of the Complainant is not regarding the quality of the dish washing machine manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party but only about the conduct and service of the 2^nd Opposite Party relating to delivery of a display piece and non refund of the price received by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party is not held liable. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.2:-

        On discussion made in Point No.1, the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.15,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a from 04.07.2014  towards refund of advance and a sum of Rs.10,000 as compensation towards mental agony and also entitled for Rs.3,000/- towards cost from the 2^nd Opposite Party.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to refund of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) together with interest @ 6% p.a from 04.07.2014  towards refund of advance and a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation towards mental agony and also entitled for Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards cost, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

           In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 29^th of August 2022.  

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

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

 

Ex.A1	04.07.2014	Copy of Invoice
Ex.A2	31.07.2014	Copy of Notice and postal receipt
Ex.A3	01.08.2014	Copy of acknowledgement card

 

List of documents filed on the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT