Complaint Filed on: 26.05.2014
          Disposed On: 23.02.2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 
PRESENT:-  SRI. P.V.SINGRI        :    PRESIDENT
                 SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA    :  :       MEMBER
                  SMT. P.K.SHANTHA    :    MEMBER

                  
COMPLAINT No.920/2014

COMPLAINANT
    Mr.Syed Shabeer Ahmed,
R/at No.16/2,
2nd Cross, Sunkel Farm,
Adugodi Post,
Bangalore-560030.

(Sri.M.Nasrullah Khan, Adv)
                                    - V/s-
OPPOSITE PARTIES    1)    Mr.Ravi Kiran, Proprietor,
M/s.Sonye Tek Marketing,
No.C-60, Opp: Kanteerava Studio, Kanteerava Studio Main Road, Bangalore-560022.

2)    M/s.Sonye Tek Marketing, Represented by its Proprietor,Mr.Sri.Ravi Kiran,
No.C-62, Opp:Kanteerava Studio, Kanteerava Studio Main Road,
Bangalore-560022. 

O R D E R 
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA,   MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for an order against OP to refund Rs.5,600/- along with interest at 18% p.a., compensation of Rs.50,000/-and cost on the allegations of deficiency of service.  

2.    The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:
OP is a dealer of home appliances besides, dealer in electric and Gas Heaters/Geysers. OP-2 is the manufacturer, who assembles the gas geyser components and market the product under the brand name Sony Tek marketing.  OP-1 along with their sales promoters Mr.Sarvotham and Mr.Rajesh had induced the complainant to purchase a Gas Geysers of Classic one Model i.e., 6L Star Plus steel body from OPs for water heating.  Accordingly, complainant purchased the same on the assurance of OPs that the said Gas Geyser is very much reliable and economical for home use.  Complainant paid Rs.5,600/- cash to OPs vide invoice, order               No:B-672 dated 27.07.2013. Complainant used the said geyser for a period of 3 months and found that the said Geyser was of inferior quality and was dysfunctional for most of the time.  OP had given a warranty of 5 years and replacement guarantee of one year.  After 3 months period the Geyser started dysfunctional on 3 occasions.  Complainant experienced heavy fire from the burner connected to the cylinder i.e., the burner instead of heating the water on the upper surface had started emitting flames downwards endangering the complainant’s family life and property into heavy risk causing danger to the property of the complainant.  This was happened due to low class and sub-standard Geyser supplied by OPs instead of assured quality Geyser, which was shown to the complainant at the time of promoting sales of the product.  The quality promised was 6L Star Plus with steel body, whereas after the receipt of payment OP has supplied a low quality and inferior make without encompassing the guaranteed product and its functions. The complainant repeatedly informed OP about the danger being experienced by the complainant and requested the OP to replace the Geyser of good quality which was promised before supply. OP advised the complainant to stop using the Geyser and bring back the Geyser for exchange to the OPs shop premises.  Complainant returned the Geyser to OP on 18.11.2013 and requested OP to replace the Geyser with the promised make and quality or else to refund amount of Rs.5,600/-. Complainant visited OP four times covering a distance of 40 Kms.  Complainant made several phone calls, OP failed and neglected in his action neither to replace the Geyser nor to refund the money paid by the complainant.  Complainant informed OP that he will be forced to approach the police if OP failed to replace the Geyser.  OP replied to the complainant stating he is welcome to take any action as he like, he is not bothered or afraid of such actions.  Complainant sent a written notice to OP on 23.12.2013 calling upon OP to refund Rs.5,600/- along with interest at 12% p.a., and damages of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days failing which he will constrained to take legal action against OP.  

3. The said notice was served to OP on 24.12.2013, there was no response from OP.  Earlier OP had supplied coil less Geyser to the complainant before the supply of the aforesaid Geyser.  Even the said coil less Geyser has not performed well.  Inspite of the complainant having brought such dis-functional and non-performance of the coil less Geyser, OP failed and neglected to provide the required support and service and also failed to rectify the defect of the said coil less Geyser. Instead of doing needful, OP repeatedly insisted the complainant that he should even forget the said coil less Geyser and should purchase Classic one model i.e., 6L Star Plus steel body Geyser.  Believing the words of assurance of OP without hesitation, purchased the said Geyser and continued the efforts of seeking replacement for the coil less Geyser from the OP. OP remained silent and ignored all the pleas made by the complainant.  OP doing his business in illegal and unlawful manner and selling the products which are spurious and not meeting the specification norms as stipulated under ISI standards.  Besides, OP was in the habit of cheating not only the complainant, but  also public at large by falsely inducing them by showing good quality product and later on delivering substandard and inferior quality products to the customers and public.  Within the period of warranty, OP has neither repaired, replaced defective Gas Geyser nor refunded the amount paid.  Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service against OP, under these circumstances he is advised to file this complaint against OP. 

3. After registration of the complaint notice is issued to OP-1 dealer.  Inspite of service of notice OP-1 remained absent and has failed to represent the case.  Hence OP-1 has placed exparte later on complainant impleaded OP-2, which is a manufacturing Company.  Inspite of service of notice OP-2 remained absent.  Hence, OP-2 is also placed exparte and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.  

4. So as to prove the case, Mr.Syed Shabeer Ahmed, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence in support of his complaint averments stating that OP-1 is a dealer of Home appliances, electric and Gas Geyser. OP-1 along with the sales promoter induced the complainant to purchase a Gas Geyser for water heating of Classic one Model i.e., 6L Star Plus steel body from OP-1. Accordingly, complainant purchased the same on the assurance of OP-1 stating that the said Gas Geyser is very much reliable and economical for home appliances.  Complainant paid Rs.5,600/- cash to OP-1 vide invoice order No. B-672 dated 27.07.2013.  The Geyser supplied by the OP-1 was used for a period of 3 months.  It was found that the said Geyser was of inferior quality and was dysfunctional most of the time.  Whereas OP-2 had given a warranty of one year and a warranty of 5 years replacement guarantee of one year.  After 3 months period the Geyser started dysfunctional on 3 occasions.  They experienced heavy fire from the burner connected to the cylinder i.e., the burner instead of heating the water on the upper surface had started emitting the flames downwards endangering his family, life and property into heavy risk.  It happened as a result of supplying a low quality and substandard Geyser instead of assured quality Geyser, which was shown to him at the time of promoting sale of the product.  The quality  promised was 6L Star Plus with steel body and after the receipt of payment OPs had supplied a low quality and inferior make without encompassing the guaranteed product and its functions. He informed OP-1 about the danger being experienced by him and requested OP-1 to replace the Geyser of good quality.  OP-1 advised him to stop using the Geyser and bring back the Geyser for exchange at the OP’s shop premises.  Accordingly, they returned Geyser on 18.11.2013 and requested OP-1 to replace the Geyser with the promised make and quality or else to refund the amount of Rs.5,600/- paid by him.  However OP-1 neither supplied the new Geyser in replacement nor repaid the amount paid by him.  Complainant visited OP-1 4 times covering a distance of 40 Kms per visit.  Inspite of several phone calls OP-1 totally failed and neglected in his action either to replace the Geyser or to refund the amount paid by him.  Complainant wrote a letter dated 23.12.2013 by RPAD calling upon OP-1 to refund Rs.5,600/- along with interest at 12% p.a. and damages of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days failing which he will be constrained to take legal action against OPs.  Inspite of service of the said letter on 24.12.2013, there was no response from OP.  OP-1 has supplied coil less Geyser earlier to supply of the aforesaid Geyser to the complainant.  Even the said coil less Geyser has not performed well and became dysfunctional frequently. Inspite of said dysfunctional and non-performance of the coil less Geyser, OP failed and neglected to provide the required support and service and also to rectify the defects and requested the complainant to forget the coil less geyser and insisted the complainant to purchase Classic one model 6L Star Plus steel body.  Believing the words and assurance of OP-1 without hesitation complainant purchased the said geyser.    OP-1 remained silent and ignored all the pleas made by complainant.  OPs are doing their business in illegal and unlawful manner and selling products which are spurious and not meeting the specification and norms as stipulated under ISI standards.  Besides the OPs are in the habit of cheating not only the complainant but public at large.  Hence he prays to allow the complaint against OP and grant relief as prayed in the complaint. 

5. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged. OPs neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6. Let us have a cursory glance at the documents produced by the complainant. Document No.1 is copy of the brochure. Document No.2 is copy of the order form bearing No.B-672 dated 27.07.2013 issued by OP-1 to the complainant.  In the said order form total 
amount shown as Rs.5,600/- and unit discount as Rs.2,000/-, Total (inclusive of VAT) shown as Rs.3,600/- and advance amount is also shown as Rs.3,600/- balance amount shown as nil.  Hence, it is not correct to say that complainant has paid Rs.5,600/- to OP.  Complainant has paid only Rs.3,600/- to OP towards cost of the gas geyser as per document No.2.  In the next page of the invoice order form as per clause (8) of the terms and conditions is mentioned free service will be rendered in the guarantee period only and unit can be exchanged with gas geyser or any other product by paying the balance amount.  Document No.3 is copy of the letter/notice of the complainant to OP-1 dated 23.12.2013 calling upon the OP to refund Rs.5,600/- along with interest at 12% p.a. and damages of Rs.50,000 within 15 days failing which complainant is constrained to initiate legal action against OP.  Document No.4 is copies of the 2 service / job cards dated 06.09.2007 and 22.07.2013 in which date of installation is mentioned as 26.08.2007 and date of service, 26.07.2013 and 25.11.2013.  Document No.5 is served postal acknowledge card dated 24.12.2013. 

7. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, it is made crystal clear that   OP is a proprietory concern and dealer of home appliances, electrical Gas Geyser.  OP-2 is manufacturer, who assembles the components and market the product through OP-1.  Attracted by colourful brochures of various products that OP is dealing with and induced by OP representative, complainant purchased one Gas Geyser Classic one model 6L Star Plus with steel body from OP-1 by paying a sum of Rs.3,600/- cash  vide order form No.B-672 dated 27.07.2013. OP-1 has issued bill/order form No.B-672 acknowledging the receipt of amount of 

Rs.3,600/- from the complainant as per Document No.2.  The Geyser supplied by OP-1 and manufactured by OP-2 was used by the complainant for a period of 3 months and it was found that the said Geyser was defective and inferior in quality. OP-2 had given a warranty of 5 years and replacement guarantee of one year.  The Geyser became dysfunctional on 3 occasions. Complainant experienced heavy fire from the burner connected to the cylinder i.e., the burner instead of heating the water on the upper surface had started emitting the flames downwards endangering his family, life and property into heavy risk. Complainant has returned the said Gas Geyser to OP-1 on 18.11.2013, same was endorsed by OP-1 on the backside of the order form dated 27.07.2013 as per Document No.2.  OPs have supplied a defective, low quality and substandard Geyser to the complainant which is dangerous to the life and property of the consumer.  Hence complainant got issued letter/notice dated 23.12.2013 calling upon OP-1  and 2 to refund Rs.5,600/- along with interest at 12% p.a. and compensation of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days, failing which he will be constrained to take legal action against OPs.  Inspite of receipt of notice of complainant on 24.12.2013 as per Document No.3 & 4, OPs have failed to respond.   The complainant is entitled for free service, replacement or for refund within the period of warranty.   Hence, we are of the considered view that the Gas Geyser supplied to the complainant has inherent defects.  Having collected Rs.3,600/-  from complainant, OPs have  neither given service nor return the gas geyser to the complainant.  Further OPs have failed to provide the service or replacement or refund within the period of warranty.    This act of OPs in selling spurious and without ISI  standard  gas geyser  to the complainant  amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in  service on the part of OPs.   We are 
satisfied that complainant proved deficiency in service against OPs.  Under the circumstances, OPs are liable to refund Rs.3,600/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service and litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP shall refund the said amount along with interest at 9% p.a. from 18.11.2013 to till the date of realization along with compensation and cost.  The said Gas Geyser is in the possession of OP-1 as on today.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER
1.    The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.  

2.    OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.3,600/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in services and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which OPs shall refund said amount along with interest at 9% p.a. from 18.11.2013 to till the date of realization along with compensation and cost to the complainant.   
        
3. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.
 (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the  23rd day of February 2016) 

MEMBER                          MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

NRS*  
COMPLAINT NO.920/2014 
Complainant    Opposite Parties
Mr.Syed Shabeer Ahmed,
R/at No.16/2,
2nd Cross, Sunkel Farm,
Adugodi Post,
Bangalore-560030.
.    1)    Mr.Ravi Kiran, Proprietor,
M/s.Sonye Tek Marketing,
No.C-60, Opp: Kanteerava Studio, Kanteerava Studio Main Road, Bangalore-560022.

2)     M/s.Sonye Tek Marketing, Represented by its Proprietor,Mr.Sri.Ravi Kiran,
No.C-62, Opp:Kanteerava Studio, Kanteerava Studio Main Road,
Bangalore-560022. 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT
1.    Doc. No.1 is copy of the brochure. 
2.    Doc. No.2 is copy of the order form bearing No.B-672 dated 27.07.2013 issued by OP to the complainant
3.    Doc. No.3 is copy of the letter/notice of the complainant to OP dated 23.12.2013.
4.    Doc. No.4 is copies of the 2 service job cards dated 06.09.2007 and 22.07.2013. 
5.    Doc. No.5 is served postal acknowledge card. 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs – Nil
List of documents produced by the OPs – Nil

MEMBER                         MEMBER                         PRESIDENT