Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

214/2011

R. Ram Rajan IPS IGP(Retd) - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

04 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  01.08. 2011

                                                                        Date of Order :  04.05.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.214/2011

WEDNESDAY THIS  4^TH  DAY OF MAY 2016

 

Mr. R.Ram Rajan IPS IGP (Retd),

No.14, Thiruvalluvar Street,

Rangarajapuram,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai 600 024.                                         ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

1.  Mr. Sharma,

IFB Industries Ltd.,

(Home Appliances Division),

Old No.36, New No.06, Arcot Road,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 26.

 

2. Mr. Kmalakannan,

Branch Manager,

R.K. International,

Franchisee of IFB Industries Limited,

Old No.257, New No.296 (GF),

Arcot Road, Vadapalani,

Chennai – 26.                                              ..Opposite parties.  

 

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. G.Munendran

For the opposite party-1             :   M/s. V.T.Narendiran & others

For the opposite party-2             :   Exparte.

        Complaint  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund of the amount of AMC of Rs.3,500/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards actual expenditure and also to pay cost of the washing machine  a sum of Rs.18,800/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as mental agony and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II      

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

          The  complainant submit that  he  had entered into an AMC for the IFB washing machine for the period 4.9.2009 to 3.9.2010 and subsequently renewed from 4.9.2010 to 3.9.2011 with the 1^st opposite party and the opposite party-2 who is franchisee of opposite party-1 had changed the pulley belt, the complaint given by the complainant on 2.7.2010 resulting in the washing machine got fired due to wrong fitting of the pulley belt.   The complainant informed about the incident to the opposite party on 9.7.2010 and subsequently contacted the customer care on 12.7.2010 and 22.7.2010 the technician visited the spot and confirmed the loss had risen due to the faulty attendance of the technician of the opposite party.  The opposite party had received the AMC amount of Rs.3,500/- for two years.   The complaint lodged by the complainant to the opposite party where the complaint number was repeatedly changed by the opposite party thrice the technician was deputed  to the complainant’s place made  a visit and not rectified the defects.    Despites   of several   reminders   made   by   the complainant,  there is   no    proper    response    from   the   opposite   party   to  rectify the defect.   As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service which  caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   As such the complainant sought for refund of the amount of AMC of Rs.3,500/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards actual expenditure and also to pay cost of the washing machine  Rs.18,800/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as mental agony and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.  Hence the complaint.

Written version opposite party is as follows:

2.     The 1^st opposite party  denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 1^st opposite party submit that the complainant has not even stated as to when he had purchased the Washing machine from IFB Industries and in any event since the said washing machine of the IFB industries has been sold by the complainant as per his complaint and since he has exchanged the washing machine with a new washing machine, the basis of the complaint itself  not sustainable and no relief can be claimed, hence presently nothing survives in the compliant and it deserves to be dismissed.    The 1^st opposite party also states that the case of the complainant is that he has entered into an AMC from 9.9.2009 to 9.9.2011 and he had problem with the washing machine and admittedly the case of the complaint is that the opposite party representative had told him that the cost of the spare part would be borne by them provided the cost of rubber of the machine was agreed to be paid by him and nowhere has the complaint stated that he had agreed to pay the cost of the rubber or that he had paid it, hence the case of deficiency against the opposite party is untenable.    As per the complaint is that he had a problem in the washing machine in July 2010 had a purchased a new washing machine by exchanging the old washing machine in May 2011 and the representatives of the opposite party had attended the machine as the said spare part was not available  there was a delay and admittedly there is no time prescribed for repair in the AMC as the same is subject to availability of the spare part and there is no justification in the claim made by the complainant.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

3.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 2^nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the 2^nd opposite party was set exparte on  23.9.2011. 

4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of 1s Opposite party   filed  and no documents was marked on the side of the  1^st opposite party.    

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

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

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

 

6.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8  were marked on the side of the complainant.  Written version and proof affidavit filed by the 1^st opposite party  and  also considered the both side arguments.

7.      The complainant a retired IPS, IGP had entered into an AMC for the IFB washing machine for the period 4.9.2009 to 3.9.2010 and subsequently renewed from 4.9.2010 to 3.9.2011 with the 1^st opposite party and the opposite party-2 who is a franchisee of opposite party-1 had changed the pulley belt (Ex.A4) the complaint given by the complainant on 2.7.2010 resulting in the washing machine got fired due to wrong fitting of the pulley belt.   The complainant informed about the incident to the opposite party on 9.7.2010 and subsequently contacted the customer care on 12.10.2010 and 22.10.2012 the technician visited the spot and confirmed the loss and confirmed the loss is due to the faulty attendance of the technician of the opposite party.  The opposite party had received the amount of Rs.3,500/- as consideration for AMC for two years under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.  The complaint lodged by the complainant to the opposite party where the complaint number was repeatedly changed by the opposite party thrice the technician was deputed to the complainant’s place, made  a visit and not rectified the defects they found in the machine.  In spite of repeated reminders from 2.7.2010 to May 2011 the complainant was very much dejected and appointed a servant to wash their cloths  by paying a monthly wage and purchased a new Godrej washing machine costing Rs.18,800/-.  It was contended by the opposite party that there is no proper response to rectify the defect.  Hence it is pleaded by the complainant and filed the complaint before this forum to get refund of Rs.3,500/- which was paid by  the complainant as AMC fee  and expenses incurred to appoint a servant Rs.600 p.m for the period of 10 months and also the cost of replacement of other washing machine to the tune of Rs.18,800/-.  The complainant retired police official keeping in high profile in the Police department which was not adhered or respected to the grievance of the consumer hence plead to give compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the physical and mental agony and litigation fee of Rs.5,000/ to be payable. 

8.     The opposite party having received a complaint had deputed the technician several times to rectify the defects whenever the call reported to them but the technician could not resolve the complaint made by the complainant.    It is contended that the washing machine was burnt on 2.7.2010 due to improper fitting of the pulley belt on head of the front loading opener of the washing machine.    The opposite party had not disputed the cause of action and the defective workmen ship of the opposite party-2 who attended the repair call.  

9.     It is denied the allegations framed against the opposite party-1 where they are not a party to the fire occurred on the washing machine it is the opposite party-2 who are held responsible for the loss of washing machine and as a manufacturer they are conceded the request of the complainant and it is the opposite party-2 who are held legally liable for executing the job, who in turn have received the consideration for annual maintenance contract.    It was stated by the complainant that the Honble forum has passed the direction to pay compensation of Rs.7,500/- and Rs.2500/- as cost which were placed before the State Commission and the appeal was  held dismissed.  Under these circumstances the complainant forced allegations on the opposite party which has not accepted by the opposite party-1 and the stated even the complainant has not gave the age of the machine and the actual price of the machine under contract had also suppressed the fact and the opposite party-1 contended the complainant had given and erroneous description which were legally untenable and going on the merits of the case it was requested to dismiss the case and pass suitable order.

10.      The opposite party-2 who was held responsible for the loss incurred to the complainant.  Both the complainant and the opposite party-1 contended that opposite party alone held responsible for the loss occurred due to negligent act of the opposite party technician resulted into the fire which engulfed in the machine of improper fixation of the pully belt.   Hence the opposite party-1 had thrown the burden of proof to opposite party-2 and opposite party-2 had become exparte on 23.9.2011

11.      Pursuant on the complaint,  written version, proof affidavit, written arguments, documents filed by both parties to the dispute and the documents submitted by the complainant and the oral argument made by the learned counsel of the both the parties to the dispute.  We are of the considered view that the opposite party-1 being a manufacturer / distributor and opposite party-1 who had made an AMC by collecting a consideration for Rs.3,500/- from the complainant both are legally binded to rectify the defects that are found in the machine.   As per COPRA 1986 and defects or services that are deficient on the side of the opposite party,  they ought to rectify and give in to the complainant in a working condition at their cost or replace the defective products.   Here in this complaint the learned counsel arguments were thoroughly heard and found that the fire that emanated in the machine is due to the defective fixation of pulley belt resulted into fire and got damaged. This was immediately informed to the opposite party-1 through tele-caller but the opposite party-1 had deputed technician who inspected the machine and contended that the cause of damage was defect of pulley belt and neither they repair the machine nor replace the machine to the satisfaction of the consumer.

12.    The complainant who is a learned Government official retired and both learned counsels were also not provided the date of purchase of the machine and the cost of the machine and usage of the machinery by the complainant for how long and what is the market value of the machine which was kept under AMC and we were unable to ascertain the value of machine which was destroyed by fire.   It is true and accepted by the opposite party-1 it was defective workmen ship of the opposite party-2 resulted in loss to the complainant. 

13.    We are of the considered view that the loss was occurred due to the defective workmen ship of the technician of the opposite party-2 and opposite party-2 had not bothered to submit the affidavit,  written version and oral arguments and declared to be an exparte and they are legally liable to pay the monetary loss incurred to the complainant and the mental and physical agony, occurred to the complainant who is held responsible.   The opposite party-1 though the cause of accident as not risen from this side but the non rectification of the defect just by deputing the personals to inspect the defective machine will not satisfy their responsibility.  Hence both the parties are held severally responsible and liable for rectifying the defects found in the machine and non compliance of their responsibility leads to mental tension and agony and monetary loss to the complainant. 

14.    We hereby directed the opposite parties are jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for monetary loss the value could not be assessed (and the complainant had replaced the said machine for Rs.800/- by purchasing a new machine for Rs.18,800/- ) and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/- to be borne both the opposite parties.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amount of Rs.10,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.  

            Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the   4^th    day of  May    2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1- 25.8.2009  - Copy of Annual Maintenance Contract receipt.

Ex.A2- 25.8.2009  - Copy of Annual Maintenance contract receipt.

Ex.A3- 9.12.2009  - Copy of receipt issued by R.K. International Franchisee

                             Of IFB Industries.

 

Ex.A4- 9.1.2010    - Copy of receipt

 

Ex.A5- 6.11.2010  - Copy of legal notice to the opposite party-1.

 

Ex.A6- 13.4.2011  - Copy of legal notice to opposite parties 1 & 2

 

Ex.A7- 19.4.2011  - Copy of legal  notice refused and returned by the

                             opposite party-1.

 

Ex.A8- 4.5.2011    - Copy of bill in Sl.No.026211 for having purchased

                             Washing machine. 

 

Opposite party’s side  documents:

 

               .. Nil..          

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.