Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/162/2012

Narava Raja Sekhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kaff Appliances (India) Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A.V.C.N. Nageswara Rao

07 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:04-06-2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:07-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Saturday, the 7^th day of February, 2015.

                                  CONSUMER CASE No.162/2012

Between:-

Narava Raja Sekhar, S/o Appa Rao,

Hindu, aged 35 years, Director of

M/s. Infinite Shipping and Logistics Pvt., Ltd.,

Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.KAFF Appliances (India) Ltd., rep. by its

   Managing Director, Corporate Office,

   Malibu Arcade, 1^st Floor, Near Water

   Reservoir, Malibu Town, Sohna Road,

   Gurgaon-122 101.

2.RAMCO Distributors (A.P), Survey No. 240,

   242 & 243, Opp: Hanuman Temple Chinna

   Tokuta, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad-503 311.

3.Sri Saritha  Decors, Rep. by its Proprietor,

   Door No. 9-15-6/6, CBM Compound, Opp:

   Prince Apartments, No.15, Visakhapatnam-3.

                                                                                    …  Opposite Parties        

                     

          This case coming on 22.01.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri A.V.C.N. Nageswara Rao & Y.K.M. Lakshmi, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri A. Venkateswara Rao, & Sri Satya Vir Sharma, Advocates for the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass a  decree and judgment in his favour against the Opposite Parties as follows: a) To direct the Opposite Parties to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) with interest from 3.01.2012, which was paid towards advance; b) To pay damages of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service; c) For costs; and d) Such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

2.     The 1^st Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

          The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 did not resist the claim of the Complainant as they were set exparte and remained exparte.

         

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturers of KUPPER 60 cm. and style of KAFF.   The 2^nd Opposite Party is the Distributor of Andhra Pradesh and also agreed to provide service throughout Andhra Pradesh and the 3^rd Opposite Party is the retailer of products that was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party.    The Complainant on seeing the brochures and promises made by the 3^rd Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party at Visakhapatnam, agreed to purchase Kitchen equipment of KUPPER 60 cm. and LG-60 cm., for the purpose of using the same in the kitchen of the Complainant’s house for an amount of Rs.66,000/- after discount.   The Complainant stated that he paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- under receipt No.108 dt.3.01.2012 from the 3^rd Opposite Party and after receipt of advance amount of Rs.50,000/- the Opposite Party have delivered the material to install the same in the Complainant’s kitchen.   At the time of installation the 2^nd Opposite Party people came to the Complainant’s house and installed the same, as per guidelines on13.3.2011 at 3 pm.    After the installation the said equipment was not in working condition.   Thereafter in the presence of the Complainant, technicians and other skilled workers, the Opposite Parties have opened the packing.   At the time of arrival of the equipment the important plate was damaged and due to that the equipment is not in function.      The Complainant stated that number of times he requested the 3^rd Opposite Party to solve the problem by deputing the concern skilled technician to the Complainant’s house to see that the new equipment is to be functioned.    But the Opposite Party people has not cared for the request of the Complainant and from the date of purchase the equipment became a state in the Complainant’s kitchen and the purpose of purchasing the kitchen equipment is totally defeated.   The 3^rd Opposite Party service rendered towards the Complainant is not up to the mark and the material supplied by the 3^rd Opposite Party is a substandard one, as such the Opposite Parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages apart from Rs.50,000/- with interest from the date of purchase as the Complainant is not interested to keep the kitchen equipment as a monument in the Complainant’s kitchen room.   The Complainant further stated that when there was no response he got issued a Registered Lawyer’s Notice to the Opposite Parties on 12.04.2012.    The said notice was received by the Opposite Parties 2 and 3.     On 17.04.2012 the notice was received by the 2^nd Opposite Party and on 14.04.2012 the notice was received by the 1^st Opposite Party; but the Opposite Parties have failed to replace the defective kitchen equipment of KUPPER 60 cm. and LG- 60 cm.   The Opposite Parties rendered defective service to the Complainant and the Complainant suffered lot of mental agony and discomfort.    Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.      Exs.A1 to A9 are marked for the Complainant suo-moto at the time of rendering this order.   

 

5.       On the other hand, the 1^st Opposite Party resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its written statement, that the contents of the prayer clause of the complaint regarding passing direction by this Forum directing the 1^st Opposite Party to refund the purchase price of Chimney and cooking range which is paid and claiming compensation on account of mental and physical agony is not proper and justified and are being denied as wrong, incorrect and baseless.   The 1^st Opposite Party contended that at the time of the opening of the cooking range the plate was found displaced and the same was adjusted, the Complainant did not pay Rs.16,000/- balance consideration to be paid to the 3^rd Opposite Party as agreed by him; the Complainant is making false frivolous and baseless allegations the Complainant did not mention even a single date and the complaint number,  his complaint against which he sought service from the 1^st Opposite Party to which the 1^st Opposite Party failed to provide the service to the Complainant.   The Opposite Parties have never denied to provide its services and is still ready for the same under the terms of the warranty and in case there is any defect in the dishwasher the 1^st Opposite Party is ready to rectify the defect in the Chimney and cooking range as per the terms of the warranty.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   The Complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to get undue advantage and to cause financial loss to the Opposite Parties by dragging in unwanted complaint.   No cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant and against the 1^st Opposite Party to file the present complaint.   The Complainant has dragged the 1^st Opposite Party in unwanted litigation.   The present complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

6.       The 1^st Opposite Party filed only written statement.   No exhibits are marked for the 1^st Opposite Party.

 

7.       The matter has not been heard on behalf of the Complainant.

          The matter has been heard on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party.

 

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that as per Ex.A5 Service Sheet, the kitchen equipment in question was installed on 13.3.201.     But up to 12.4.2012, for more than one year, there was not even a whimper of complaint on record from the Complainant to the Opposite Parties at any time.   It is also an admitted fact that the warranty for the said kitchen equipment was only for one year.   An averment to that effect made in the Ex.A9 Reply Notice dated 9.5.2012 by the 1^st Opposite Party was not rebutted by the Complainant to date.   So, it is as clear as daylight that the Complainant took up cudgels only after the expiry of the warranty period.   Very peculiarly, the Complainant did not file any warranty card which naturally accompanies any sale of a costly item.   In the circumstances, the refund of the purchase amount of the kitchen equipment in question does not arise.   Moreover, as the warranty period has already expired, the Complainant is bound to pay for any repair he requests from the Opposite Parties.   It is prima-facie evident that the Complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands holding an untenable claim.   Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

 

 

9.       In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 7^th day of February, 2015.

  Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                      Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	21.12.2010	Quotation for Chimney and Cooking Range issued by the 3rd OP to Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A02		Receipt No.108 for Rs.50,000/- issued by the 3rd OP to Complainant	Photo copy
EX.A03	12.02.2011	Cash Bill for Rs.66,000/- issued by 3rd OP in favour of the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A04	12.02.2011	Delivery Challan No.105 issued by the 3rd OP	Original
Ex.A05	13.03.2011	Service Sheet issued by 2nd OP to Complainant	Original
Ex.A06	12.04.2012	Registered Lawyer’s Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to Ops 1 to 3.	Office copy
Ex.A07	17.04.2012	Postal Acknowledgement from 2nd OP	Original
Ex.A08	14.04.2012	Postal Acknowledgment from 3rd OP	Original
Ex.A09	09.05.2012	Reply Lawyer’s Notice issued  by the OP’s counsel to Complainant	Office copy

For the Opposite Parties:-                                  

                                      -Nil-           

  Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                      Sd/-

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member