Complaint presented on :    18.07.2012

                                                                          Order pronounced on     :    05.03.2015  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(NORTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,                   :       MEMBER II

THURSDAY THE 05^th DAY  OF MARCH 2015

C.C.NO.164/2012

R.Subramanian,

69-B, HIG, TNHB 2^nd  Cross Street,

Nolambur,  Mogappair West,

Chennai – 600 037.                                                                  ...  Complainant

..Vs..

Date of complaint                   :        18.07.2012

Counsel for Complainant             :        M/s. K. Rajagopalan & N.Maheswaraiah    

Counsel for Opposite parties       :         M/s. Mariappan, M/s. R. Sriram,   

                S.Subramonian

O R D E R

THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, PRESIDENT               

          Complaint filed  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties  to pay a sum of Rs. 31,991/- towards the claim of the complainant  towards compensation for mental agony and  monetary loss  suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service  together  with interest  at the rate of 18% p.a from the date  of the claim till payment and to pay  costs of the complaint. 

1. Complaint in brief :

The complainant purchased  a ONIDA GRILL 20L BLK MICROWAVE OVEN  from the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,491/-  on 30.06.2011.  The said oven manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The oven was working properly for a period of 3 months, after that  it was not working properly. The warranty  is for a period of one year. Hence the complainant gave a complaint  through call centre no.111263363800 on 10.10.2011. The complainant also contacted the 1^stopposite party men                Mr. Gridhar and Mr.John  to their mobile and they have also not responded.  Hence he sent complaints in writing on 10.11.2011, 17.12.2011, 13.01.2012 and 23.12.2012 to the 1^st opposite party to replace the defective product  supplied to him and however the 1^st opposite party did not respond for the same.  On 25.02.2012 Mr.Gridhar and Mr.John came to the complainant’s residence took away the defective oven after giving due acknowledgment with a promise to replace the product within a week time. However they have not replaced the same. Hence the  complainant issued a legal notice dated 5.2.2012 calling upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.31,991/- towards cost of the oven and damages for deficiency in service and mental agony  and hardship caused to him. Even after  acknowledging the said notice, the opposite party neither sent any reply nor turned up  to rectify and hand over  a new product to the complainant.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for the deficiency in service committed by them.

2.   Though the 2^nd  opposite party  received notice they remained absent and set exparte.  The written version of the 1^st opposite party in brief:

      The 1^st opposite party admits that the complainant purchased ONIDA GRILL 20L BLK MICROWAVE OVEN  0n 30.06.2011.  However they would deny that the  oven started giving trouble after 3 months from the date of purchase.  The complaint was logged only in the year December 2011.  They have not received any complaint. The complainant sent a complaint dated  01.12.2011 and the same  was registered on the same day and the same has been attended to the satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the cavity.  The complainant has not followed the instruction and the product has been damaged due to the  erratic use of the complainant.  It is equally false to  state that the complainant  has made reminders to  this opposite party.  This opposite party executive never offered or promised that the product will be replaced.   The product covered under the warranty and this opposite party has rectified the product for the second time  at free of cost, but the complainant   has not accepted the same and demanded for replacement. Immediately after receipt after notice, the 1^st opposite party executive asked the complainant to collect the product and however he was demanding  replacement of the product and therefore the opposite party sent a reply notice  dated 14.07.2012 asking the complainant  to collect the  new set from his service provider company. This opposite party have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

3.   The Complainant had filed  his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were  marked  on the side of the complainant.  The opposite party filed his proof affidavit and Ex.B1  marked on the side of the opposite party.

4. The points for consideration

1)  Whether  the opposite parties committed  deficiency in service?

2)   To what relief the complainant is entitled?

5. POINT NO : 1

It is an admitted fact that the complainant  purchased ONIDA GRILL 20L BLK MICROWAVE OVEN  from the  2^nd opposite party under Ex.A1 for a sum of Rs.5,491/-  on 30.06.2011, which was manufactured  by the 1^st opposite party and  Ex.A2 user manual and Guarantee card  issued by the 2^nd opposite party  contains  warranty for a period of 12 months.

The   complainant contended that the product oven was working  properly for a period of 3 months and after that it gave all sorts of problem and hence he gave complaint through call centre on 10.10.2011 and  he also contacted Mr.Gridhar and Mr. John to their mobile phones and however they could not turned up and on 25.02.2012 the  above said persons  came to his residence and took away the oven promising to replace the same within a week and however they have not turned up hence  he issued Ex.A5 legal notice  dated 12.05.2012 and though the same was duly acknowledged by the 1^st opposite  party he did not reply  for the same and hence he filed this complaint.

The 1^st opposite party admits that they have taken the product for rectification and accordingly to the satisfaction of the complainant they replaced cavity in the product and however after  such repair the  complainant has not come forward to collect the product inspite of that it was duly informed to him.

In the written version admitted that complaint was lodged in  the year December 2011.  Further, Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 is the complaints dated 13.01.2012 and 23.01.2012 sent to the 1^st opposite party.  In Ex.A4 the proof available that Mr.D.John made an endorsement that the product taken on 25.02.2012 from the complainant. However no communication marked by the opposite party that after changing the cavity they informed to the complainant  that, he can collect the rectified product.  When the opposite party  himself  admitted that they had changed the cavity in the product, would establish that the product is having defects. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party that due to erratic use, the oven become  defect is not acceptable  for the reason that  no materials placed by the 1^st opposite party.

The  1^stopposite party would content that they gave Ex.B1 reply dated 14.07.2012 to collect the product, but the complainant  refused the same  and sent  notice  with  distorted  facts.   After, Mr.D. John collected the product  on 25.02.2012  till  the  date of filling the complaint 18.07.2012  no document filed by the 1^st opposite party that  they have rectified the oven by replacing the cavity and the complainant can come and collect the product. Further there is no proof available in Ex.B1 that the said reply notice was sent to the  complainant  or his counsel.  Hence the contention of the complainant that no such reply was sent to him and the same was created only for the purpose of the case  has to be  accepted, in the absence of acknowledgement for Ex.B1.  On the other hand the Ex.A5 legal notice contains proof of postal receipts that the said notice was sent to the opposite party  1 & 2. Therefore, the contention of the  1^st opposite party that he sent  reply Ex.B1 and made ready the product and the  complainant refused to collect the product and demanded replacement of product  is not accepted and the same has been invented only for the purpose of this case.  Further  Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 letters, he only asked  to refund the sale price of the oven and compensation for his mental agony only.  Therefore  it is held that  the  products sold to the complainant was having inherent defect and the same was not rectified and handed over  to the  complainant establishes that the 1^st opposite party  committed deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.

6. POINT NO:2

The complainant  contended that he purchased the oven  to be used by his wife  who is an handicapped person and because the product was not rectified and delivered to him, his wife unable to use the product and thereby both of them suffered with mental agony for the usage. The complainant  wife is an handicapped person supported by Ex.A6.  He has purchased the product because she is an handicapped person and therefore complainant suffered with mental agony  because of the defective product is acceptable and further, the complainant has to be necessarily compensated the cost of the product of Rs.5,491/-.  The complainant claimed  only sum of Rs.31,991/- towards compensation for mental agony. The amount claimed seems  to be reasonable.  Therefore a compensation of Rs.30,000/- can be awarded in favour of the complainant and a sum of Rs.3,000/- cost of the complaint and accordingly this point is answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  1^st opposite party is  directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards compensation besides  a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the complaint.    The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the above amounts  within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the  above said amounts  shall carry  interest at the rate of 9%  per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.  The complaint in respect of the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed without cost.

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 05^th day of March 2015.

          MEMBER-II                                                                       PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENT:

             MEMBER-II                                                             PRESIDENT