Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/76/2019

Mahalakshmi kailas - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s D J Appliances & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Krishna Ravindran

11 May 2022

ORDER

 

Date of Complaint Filed :13.03.2019                                                       

Date of  Reservation      : 26.04.2022

Date of Order               : 11.05.2022

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.76/2019

WEDNESDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF MAY 2022

Mahalakshmi Kailas,

No.20, 11^th Cross Street,

Sastri Nagar,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                                                                                                       ... Complainant  

                                                                                                     

..Versus..

1.M/s. DJ Appliances Pvt Ltd.,

   Represented by its Managing Director,

   Siemens Showroom,

   New No.2, Old No.87, Bazullah Road,

   T Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

 

   Also at

   No. T 92, 3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar,

   Chennai – 600 040.   

   Near Nallas Appakadai,

   Opposite Kovai Pazhamuthir Nilayam

 

2.M/s. Siemens Limited,

   Rep by its Managing Director and CEO,

   Having Registered Office,

   Birla Aurora, Level 21,

   Plot No.1080, Dr.Annie Besant Road,

   Worli, Mumbai – 400030.                                                                                           ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. Krishna Ravindran

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : Ex-parte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant 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 Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to return the sum of Rs.42,000/- along with interest to the Complainant from the respective date of payment @24% per annum till date of re-payment and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and towards hardship and mental agony and to pay the cost of the Complaint.

2.     The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant is 66 years old and is a senior citizen and that on 24.01.2018 she booked a Dryer (8KG) Model NO.WT442202IN with M/s. D.J.Appliances Pvt Ltd., the 1^st Opposite Party who is the authorized showroom of Siemens, the 2^nd Opposite Party herein. The Complainant has paid the entire cost of the Dryer i.e., Rs.42,000/- and the 1^st Opposite Party had also issued a Receipt No.CHN/T/RC/117/17-18 for the said payment. The 1^st Opposite Party had informed the Complainant that she would receive the Dryer within the next 24 hours i.e. on 25.01.2018. Though the 1^st Opposite Party had promised to deliver the product within 24 hours, the same has not been delivered to the Complainant till date. On 17.03.2018, she has sent a Letter to the Showroom Manager Mr.Yasin of the 1^st Opposite Party about the delay in delivering the Dryer. Seeing that there was no hope in receiving the product the Complainant requested the 1^st Opposite Party to refund the amount paid with the interest but there has been no response till date. The Complainant suddenly received an e-mail from one Ms.Aabha Bakshi of the customer care of the 2^nd Opposite Party to wait till 30.05.2018 for the delivery of the product. But the said product has not been delivered to the Complainant till date, and hence the Complainant sent another E-mail to Ms.Aabha Bakshi of the 2^nd Opposite Party on 05.06.2018 as there was no response. The Complainant had received a reply from one Mr. Sujit Purushottam of the 2^nd Opposite Party requesting the Complainant to wait till end of June / 1^st week of July 2018 and that the product would be delivered, even though the Complainant sought for refund of the money paid still the Complainant was waiting on the fond hope she may get the product. The Complainant again sent an e-mail to Ms.Jagurti Pandit of DJ Appliances on 31.07.2018 but there was no response. On 05.08.2018 and 16.08.2018, the Complainant had again contacted the 2^nd Opposite Party and informed about the delay in delivering the product  and the same has not been delivered till date. The act of Opposite Parties is contrary to the initial promises made by the Opposite Parties at the time of ordering the dryer and also to the repeated false and misleading promises made by the executives of the Opposite Parties after receiving the entire amount for the product. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Being a senior citizen, the Complainant has been put to great mental agony, stress due to the callous attitude of the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint.

3.     The Opposite Parties did not appear  before this Commission even after sufficient notice to them. Hence the Opposite Parties were set exparte .

4.     The Complainant had filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Complainant Exs-A.1 to Ex-A.3 were marked.

5.     Points for Consideration:-

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

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

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

6.      Point No.1

        On perusal of Ex.A-1, it is evident that on 24.06.2018 the Complainant had purchased an 8 kg dryer vide Model No.WT442202IN for a sum of Rs.42,000/- from the 1^st Opposite Party. The contention of the Complainant  is that the 1^st Opposite Party had promised to deliver the dryer within 24 hours. However the 1^st Opposite Party has not delivered the dryer despite several months of repeated request to deliver the dryer. As per Ex.A-2 the Complainant had sent a letter on 17.03.2018 to the 1^st Opposite Party about the delay in delivering the dryer and requested for refund of the amount. It is evident from Ex.A-3 series that on 17.05.2018 the 2^nd Opposite Party had admitted that there was a delay in the delivery of the product and sought time till 30.05.2018. Again the 2^nd Opposite Party by its mail dated 08.06.2018, regretted for their delay and assured to arrive at a solution by 1^st week  of  July. Though the 2^nd Opposite Party had assured the Complainant that they would follow up with the 1^st Opposite Party in resolving the issue, the 2^nd Opposite Party had failed to arrive at a solution. The Complainant had placed reliance on the Judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of TATA Motors Ltd Vs Prashanth Bhai Premshankar Vyas and & others reported in 2016 SCC online NCDRC 221, wherein it was held that the manufacturer can be held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the dealer.

The act of the Opposite Parties in not delivering the Dryer (8 Kg) model No.WT442202IN till date which was booked on 24.01.2018 on payment of the entire cost of Rs.42,000/- by the Complainant, inspite of several reminders, to the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

7.     Point No.2 and 3:-

We have discussed and decided that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service. Therefore the Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 24.01.2018 till the date of this Order. Further, the Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for  deficiency in service and also for the hardship and mental agony caused to the Complainant, a senior citizen along with cost of Rs.5000/-. Accordingly, point Nos 2 & 3 are answered.  

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. Both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/-(Rupees Forty Two Thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum  from 24.01.2018 till the date of this order. Further, it is directed that both the Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and also for the hardship and mental agony caused to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards litigation expenses. Both Opposite Parties shall pay the above amounts jointly and severally within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to recover the above amounts along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order  till the date of realisation.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 11^th day of May 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	24.01.2018	Payment Receipt
Ex.A2	17.03.2018	Complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party
Ex.A3	18.04.2018 05.06.2018 31.07.2018	Series of E Mails sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

                             NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                   T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                        B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                MEMBER I                           PRESIDENT