Date of Filling      :  21.06.2012.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  :  20.04.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.13/2012

(Dated this Wednesday the 20^th day of April 2016)

T.R. Prakash,

No.26, First Street,

Kothari Nagar,

Ramapuram,

Chennai – 600 089.                                                          … Complainant.

/ Versus /

1.  M/s. Goodsun Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Managing Director,

    SF.206, Perks Campus,

    Uppipalayam Post,

    Coimbatore – 641 015.

2. M/s. Goodsun Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

     Rep. by its Manager,

    6^th Cross, Samayapuram,

    Porur,

    Chennai – 600 116.                                                           … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 24.03.2016 in the presence of Thiru. M. Lenin Samuel, Counsel for the complainant, Thiru. M.K. Subramani, Counsel for the 1^{st and} 2^nd opposite parties and  having perused the documents and evidences of both sides, this Forum delivered the following,

                                                ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to refund  the cost price of the Solar water heater of Rs.43,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and to pay Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service caused by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties.

The brief averments of the amended complaint is as follows:-

That one Mr. S. Ganesan, Executive of the 2^nd opposite party approached the complainant for the purchase of solar water heater having model reference 200 Goodsun solar water heater Ref.ETC in the first week of January 2011.While hewas canvassing the complainant for the said purchase of water heater the 2^nd opposite party assured the complainant that it was well suitable and fit for the weather and water conditions prevailing in Chennai.Therefore, the complainant decided to purchase the said solar water heater along with its tank, fittings, accessories etc and purchaseorder was placed on 21.01.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as an advance and balance a sum of Rs.33,000/- was also paid to the opposite parties and the 2^nd opposite party acknowledged the same on 21.03.2011.

1. Goodsun Solar hot water etc, storage tank Ref.HR 200 Lt.
2. ETC solar glass tube.
3. Support stand
4. Out gasket.
5. Bottom Gasket
6. Silicon Rubber Gasket Inner
7. 8x25 mm bolt, nut and washer
8. Bottom support (SS) Folder

through the 2^nd opposite party in complainant’s residence at No.26, Kothai Nagar, First Street, Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 116.

          3.       Immediately within one week from the date of installation the said water heater stopped working and the tank started leaking.  Therefore, the complainant and his family members could not tap hot water or the normal water since the entire water leaked out.  Then the complainant called both the opposite parties several times and complained to the 2^nd opposite party in order to rectify and replace the same.   But none of the opposite party took any steps to rectify nor replace the same.  Therefore, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by suggesting a wrong model to the complainant and thereby the complainant had to undergo untold miseries and hardships.  They were not able to draw water from it, which also lead the complainant and his family members to suffer with cold, cough, sneezing etc, Further the complainant was not in a position to get it rectified not to remove the same solar water heater to their destination/workshop since the opposite parties imposed a condition to the complainant not to allow any unauthorized person to attend any faults in the system as per their warranty book.

4.       Therefore, the complainant was compelled to wait for the opposite parties or their authorized persons to come and get the same rectified.  None of them turned up till date.  Further the opposite parties never took any step to honor the warranty given to the complainant at the time of purchase.   Then the complainant issued a legal notice to opposite parties and it was acknowledged by the opposite parties on 10.01.2012.    That on receipt of the 1^st opposite party’s reply dated 18.01.2012, the complainant issued a rejoinder to the earlier counsel notice on 06.02.2012 calling upon them to remove the water heater, fittings and accessories within 15 days from the said notice enabling the complainant to replace a new one of his choice for which the 1^st opposite party took the very same stand as stated earlier in their reply dated 18.01.2012 by their subsequent reply dated 20.02.2012.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party without adhering to any of their commitments given to the complainant.  Hence, the complaint.

5.       The contention of written version of the 2^nd opposite party and the same is adopted by the 1^st opposite party is  brief as follows:-

The complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The opposite parties denied all the allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.  As preliminary objection the complaint has to be rejected for want of jurisdiction.   The territorial jurisdiction was very well stated in the invoice, sale receipt and warranty card, i.e. any dispute with regard to purchase of goods it can be tried only within Coimbatore jurisdiction.  Therefore, this complaint has to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  That without prejudice to the above said contention the opposite parties denied the allegation that the 2^nd opposite party approached the complainant for purchase of water heater is false and frivolous allegation.  The 2^nd opposite party never assured that the component is well suitable for weather and water condition of the area as absolute false, baseless and vexatious allegation.  This opposite party accept that the complainant purchased the 200LPD Goodsun water heater.

6.       The allegation that within one week from the date of installation the said water heater stopped working and the tank started leaking is false.  It is further denied that the complainant called both the opposite parties several times and none of the parties took any steps to rectify the same.  It is false to say that at one point of time the 1^st opposite party admitted to the complainant that the model supplied was not suitable for Chennai and thus the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.   The other allegations are also denied that the family members of the complainant suffer with cold, fever sneezing etc are all patent lie and it is only adding a brick to the story.   The entire allegation in the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous and there is no iota of truth at all.

7.       The complainant made complaint that the tank is leaking immediately one week from the date of installation.  All of a sudden without giving chance to check and inspect the device, the complainant issued notice to the opposite parites stating that the 2^nd opposite party has to pay for the damages.  When the qualified Engineer gone to the complainant’s house he had not allowed the staff to inspect the device.  Hence the staff returned and informed the opposite party. On 18.01.2012 the 2^nd opposite party sent a letter that defect will be carried out at free of cost and he was requested to send the heater to the Chennai service center to rectify the same if there is any manufacturing defect.  Without adhering to the norms the complainant issued 2^nd notice on 06.02.2012 as though the opposite parties are not willing to rectify the same.

8.       After issuance on the note the opposite parties staff namely Mr. Prakash went to the complainant’s house on 15.02.2012 and inspected the device and found that there is corrosion due to usage of salt water and hard water into the tank.  At the time of installation of device the officials informed to the complainant at any point of time salt water or hard water should not  be let into tank.  At the time of installation the complainant promised that he will use drinking water for the water heater.  But against the norms and terms and conditions of the usage of the device the complainant used salt water and the device got damaged.  Due to corrosion the body of the tank got damaged.  Since, it is unable to rectify at the complainant’s house, the opposite parties’ staff requested to bring the water heater to the service center but the complainant refused for the same.

9.       Again on 09.03.2012 the opposite partys  staff inspected and found that there is a lot of layer of salt in the tank due to which the tank got damaged.  On both occasions this opposite party’s staff requested the complainant to sign in the job record.  But, the complainant refused to sign in the Job record. Hence the company is not liable for the same and the warranty is not applicable for the mistake of the complainant.  Further there is no expert opinion with regard to damage of device.  The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10.       In order to prove the case on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Exhibit A1 to A11 were marked.  While so, on the side of the  opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed  and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked on his side.

11.       At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether it is correct to say that this Forum has no jurisdiction to proceed with this complaint?

2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

3. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

12.     Inspite of sufficient time given for filing of written arguments and for adducing oral arguments both the parties have not come forward neither to file the written arguments nor for oral arguments.  Hence written arguments and oral arguments were closed for both sides.

13.     Point no.1:-

          According to the contention of the opposite party raised both in written version as well as in the proof affidavit is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint since, it is very well stated in the invoice sale receipt and warranty card which clearly shows the purchase of goods only at Coimbatore and also as per the terms and conditions any dispute arises it should be decided only at Coimbatore.  At the outset, on careful perusal of the Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 which are one and the same that is the tax invoice dated 17.02.2011,  it is true that clause 4 mentioned in the head terms of delivery as Sales under invoice is subject to Coimbatore jurisdiction and all disputes of its invoice is subjected to Coimbatore courts only.  Further, it is true that as per Ex.A1, the Tax Invoice, Ex.A2, the purchase order and Ex.A3 delivery challan clearly denotes the fact that the alleged goods mentioned in the complaint are all purchased and in turn delivery done only at Coimbatore as rightly pointed by the opposite party.   Regarding, the above said facts averred by the opposite party, there is no dispute at all.   Whereas Ex.A7 and Ex.B5 and Ex.A11 and Ex.B4 are one and the same which clearly reveals the fact that the 1^st opposite party is having the service center at Porur, Chennai.  The recitals in the above said documents is read as follows

We are willing to rectify it at free of cost and kindly send the Heater to our Chennai service center.

From the foregoing facts, it is crystal clear that, the  service center of the 1^st opposite party is the 2^nd opposite party functioning at Chennai.  Moreover, in the written version submitted by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties the said facts has been incorporated.  Not only that, the opposite parties have clearly informed the complainant to utilize the service of their Chennai service center in order to rectify the defects found in the Heater purchased by the complainant.   It is further seen that in Ex.A7 and Ex.A11, it has been mentioned that the heater should have taken over to the service center at Chennai for further rectification.

14.     In the light of the above facts and observations, it goes without saying that the opposite parties themselves admitted that there is a service center at Chennai for rendering service to the customers.  Therefore, though it is embodied  in Ex.A1 and Ex.B2 there is a specific clause for jurisdiction, there is no harm to file this complaint in this Forum since the opposite party themselves admitted that there is a service Center at Porur, Chennai which is very well comes under jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, the plea raised by the opposite parties that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint  is hereby rejected.  Thus, the point no.1 is answered accordingly.

15.     Point no.2:-

Regarding this point, on going through the evidence of the complainant and the opposite party, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the Solar Heater along with the necessary accessories on payment of Rs.43,000/- towards total cost by means of Ex.A1, tax invoice, Ex.A2, purchase order and the same was delivered in the residence of the complainant through Ex.A3, the delivery challan.  It is further learnt that immediately after one week from the date of installation, the said water heater stopped working and the tank started leaking and hence the complainant has called the opposite parties for several times to rectify the defects or to replace the same.  But none of the opposite parties turned up.  In this aspect, it is needless to say that the bounden duty of the complainant to prove the same with relevant documents.  But infact none of the documents filed by the complainant before this Forum in order to prove that the complainant had informed about the defects to the opposite parties in several times.  Therefore, there is a reasonable suspect arises that as to whether the complainant has complained the defects immediately to the opposite parties as narrated both in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit, that is immediately after one week of installation.

16.     In fact, on further perusal of the affidavit of the documents, it is learnt that as the first time, the complainant had issued Ex.A5, legal notice dated 05.12.2012  to the opposite parties with the complaint of defects in the solar water heater which was purchased from the opposite parties which is nearly a long delay of nearly one year from the date of purchase of the said solar water heater.  So it goes without saying that there is no truth on the averments made in the complaint that there was a defect found in the solar water heater immediately after one week of purchase.  If it is so, the complainant ought to have immediately informed to the opposite party or sent through by other means of communications.  But the complainant has failed to do so.  No such document except the legal notice Ex.A5  and the acknowledgement cards for the receipt of the Ex.A5 by the opposite parties are marked as Ex.A6 series.

17.     It is further seen that immediately on receipt of Ex.A5 the opposite parties had sent a letter which is marked as Ex.A7 as well as Ex.B5 which are one and the same in which it is clearly stated that, to take the Heater to their Chennai service center to rectify the defects at free of cost.  Even thereafter the complainant had sent rejoinder notice through his counsel which is marked as Ex.A8 with the averments that he is not willing to comply the request made in Ex.B5.  It is further learnt from Ex.B6 the service report submitted by the service technician by name Thiru. Prakash, it is clearly mentioned that the said water heater should have taken over to the service center for further service and rectification.  On the said report, the 1^st opposite party has again sent a letter, Ex.A11, Ex.B4 which are one and the same to the complainant, in which it has stated that as, once again we assure you that if there is any manufacturing defects we are willing to rectify it at free of cost and kindly send the water heater to our Chennai service center.  Thereafter, again the 1^st opposite party had deputed the same service Engineer to the complainant’s house for rendering service and again the service Engineer has submitted the work report Ex.B7 with his endorsement that he had informed the complainant / customer as “kPz;Lk; ,e;j KiwAk; ehd; thbf;ifahsuplk; ,ij ru;tP]; nrd;lUf;F vLj;J Ngha;jhd; rup nra;a KbAk; vd;W $wptpl;Nld;”.

18.     In such circumstances, it is crystal clear that the opposite parties has sincerely and properly had attended and deputed their service engineer to the complainant’s house to rectify the defects as alleged by the complainant and in turn the service engineer has clearly intimated the real defect found in the said solar heater to the complainant in two times and submitted the report Ex.B6 and Ex.B7 respectively and thereby the opposite parties has fulfilled their service as per the terms and conditions which is marked as Ex.A4.  While so, the complainant only has voluntarily and wantonly not co-operated with the opposite parties which has been clearly comes out through Ex.A8 and thereby the real intention of the complaint has been proved as narrated by the opposite parties. 

19.     At this juncture this Forum wants to enlighten that nobody expects that all goods should have functioned at 100% proper.   Rarely there is a possibility to have some repairs or defects arises in the goods by means of manufacturing or otherwise which are minor or major.  Such defects may be rectified subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the manufacturer or the dealer only with the due co-operation of the purchaser / customer.   But the case in hand, it is learnt that even though the opposite parties are ready and willing to rectify the defects or even there is any manufacturing defect at free of cost, but the complainant has not come forward to co-operate with the opposite parties.  Therefore, there is a defect only on the part of the complainant not any defect on the side of the opposite parties and thereby the allegations made in the complaint have not at all been proved by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding  the deficiency of service.   Thus, the point no.2 is answered accordingly.

20.     Point no.3:-

 In view of the conclusion arrived in point no.2, this  complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.  Thus, the point no.3 is answered accordingly.

          21.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 20^th   April 2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT