Date of Filling:      01.10.2014

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  27.11.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

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

THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.,      …MEMBER

CC No.65/2014

TUESDAY, THE 27^th   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

N.Gunasekaran,

S/o.Narayanan,

Mangamma Pettai,

Vadambakkam,

Arrakkonam -631 003.                             …..Complainant.

                                             //Vs//

1.The Voltas,

   Managing Director Voltas House  A

   Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road,

   Chinipokli,

   Mumbai- 400033.

2.The proprietor,

   Athithan Furniture and Electronics,

   No.131, G.N.T.Road,

   Redhills, Chennai – 52.

3.The proprietor,

    Athithan Furniture and Electronics,

   Nagalaapuram Road,

   Uthukottai Town and Taluk,

4.The proprietor,

   Cool Breeze,

   No.33/55, 1^st Floor,

   Gandhi Road,

   Stuartpet, Arakkonam - 631 001.                                  ….opposite parties.

   The complaint is coming upon before us finally on 19.11.2018 in the presence of M/s.V.Murali, counsel for the complainant and counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties  has filed written version and subsequently has not come forward to file proof Affidavit,  the  2nd and 3^rd  opposite parties were set Ex-parte and in the presence of M/s.J.Ganesh counsel for the 1^st and 4^th opposite party  and having perused the documents, evidences and written argument of the complainant side, this Forum delivered the following:-

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT.

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite parties for seeking direction to replace the manufacturing defective Voltas AC Machine or to return the sale amount of Rs.30,500/- and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, hardship due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1to4 and with cost Rs.5,000/- only.

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

The Complainant has purchased the Voltas Split AC of which model No.183 CX in door No.4551600A 13J014235 and outdoor No.4511639D13J014079 in the 3^rd opposite part’s shop.  The 3^rd opposite party’s shop is the branch of 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party issued Bill for a sum of Rs.30500/- which being the total sale amount.  The complainant paid entire amount in lump-sum in cash on 27.03.2014.  But after three days only the 3^rd opposite party sent men for installation.  They came to complainant’s house and installed the AC on 30.03.2014.  But to complainant’s shock and surprise from the day one of installation the AC is not working and there is no cool Breeze from AC.

3. The complainant immediately reported the problem to the opposite parties 2to 4 who is authorized service centre.  The 4^th opposite party sent one of his technician namely Prasanth on 01.04.2014 and he filled the gas and issued a job card.  But the system worked only for week’s time and there was a gas leak.  The complainant this time also reported the problem with 4^th opposite party.  The 4^th opposite party sent one technician only on 17.06.2014 after month’s time.  This time also technician filled the gas and operated the system.  But this time also the system not worked.  The complainant reported the problem to the opposite parties 2to 4.  The 4^th opposite party sent one technician on 01.07.2014 who issued a job card and taken out the AC system to 4^th opposite part’s service centre and next day your men brought the system and fitted into complainant’s house stating that problem was solved.  But to complainant’s shock and surprise it was not worked and there was no cooling breeze comes out from the system.  Again the problem was reported to the opposite party’s 2to 4 and 4^th opposite party came to complainant’s house and you replaced the condense coil leak, checked the gas and stated work was completed and issued job card dated 07.07.2014.  But the AC system not working properly and no cooling breeze from the system.

4. The 1^st day itself the opposite part’s men find out that there is no gas in the system to erupt the cool breeze.  It is purely manufacturing defect only.  The opposite party 1to4 have committed great deficiency in service and also indulged unfair trade practice in selling the manufactured defective goods and therefore the complainant and his family indulged lot of mental agony.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

5. The contention of written version of the 2^nd  and 3^rd opposite party are briefly as follows:-

The opposite parties 2and3 deny all the allegations stated in the complaint and those that are specifically admitted herein. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are neither the brand owner nor the service contractor.  The product was displayed in the showroom and sold to the complainant, issued bills to that effect.

6. That for all services guarantees and warrantees the company and the service contractor shall be answerable and responsible.  That the complainant himself admitted that “it is purely manufacturing defect only” this clearly shows that the defect caused by manufacturing binding on the 1^st opposite party and the defect must be rectified by the 4^th opposite party who is the authorized service center.  The complaint against the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are not valid in law and facts. Hence this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

7. The contention of written version of the 1st  and 4^th  opposite party are briefly as follows:-

 Due to workmanship error during the commissioning time, gas leakage has happened and the same was rectified by the technician of the authorized service centre M/s. Cool Breeze and made the unit working in a good condition.  During the period of July-August 2014 complaints were intimated by the complainant and further to that as per the warranty policy necessary repairs was done by the opposite parties 1and 4.

8. After, that due to dissatisfaction of the product, complainant and family decided to give back the unit to the 2^nd opposite party and arguing for cash back.  Later 1^st opposite party representing voltas limited, was notified all such happenings through a legal notice served by the complainant for replacement, after which the opposite parties 1and 4 have directed out own employee and authorized service centre to do necessary settlements after direct visit to the complainants residence for conducting inspection, for which the complainant was not allowed the opposite parties 1and 4 to proceed.

9. Opposite parties 1and 4 persons were approached the complainant to get the things settled many times through arranging and giving replacement of a brand new unit.  But the complainant was not in the intention to settle the case and deputed 3^rd persons in to this, whoever no way related to this case.  The complainant nobody responded for the opposite parties 1and 4 and the complainant has filed the case in the DCDRF intentionally for getting compensation.

10. The opposite parties have offered the complainant Mr.Gunasekaran that the opposite parties are ready to issue brand new unit replacement” to resolve the issue once for all, but complainant did not respond                                                            to the opposite parties for settlement.  Till date the opposite parties did not get any commitment for this and each and every one avoids our intervention towards settlement and all are expecting us to give compensation of huge amount only.

11. The opposite parties 1and 4 are in the intention to settle this case in a positive manner by providing brand new unit replacement or refund of money only, requesting this Forum to intervene in this situation for making this to settle once for all without any compensation.

12. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof Affidavit submitted as his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked.  While so on the side of the 2^nd and 3rd opposite parties though the written version filed, but proof affidavit not filed on their side and thereby 2^nd  and 3^rd  opposite parties were set ex-parte and to prove the case on the side of the 1^st opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and Ex.B1 is marked and 4^th opposite party has filed proof affidavit, but has not come forward to file any document.

13. At this juncture, the point for consider before this Forum is:-

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

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

14. Written arguments filed and oral argument also adduced on the side of the complainant and 1^st and 4^th opposite parties.

15. Point.No.1:-

As per the averments of the complaint as well as proof affidavit, it is learnt that the complainant has purchased the Voltas Split AC Machine from the opposite parties 1to 3 on 27.03.2017 and subsequently the function of the said Volta Split AC Machine was not properly working and there is no cool breeze from AC and thereby immediately it is reported by the complainant to the opposite parties 2to 4 and inturn the 4^th opposite party sent one of his technician on 01.04.2014 and evenafter one week, again the same problem had started and also reported the problem with 4^th opposite party and he has sent one technician on 17.06.2014.  Similarly the same problem was aroused on 01.07.2014, 7.7.2014 and various dates and eventhen the defect has not been rectified.  The purchase bill dated 27.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.30,500/- issued by the 2^nd opposite party is marked as Ex.A1 and installation report is marked as Ex.A2 and User Manual Book is marked as Ex.B12 and job card issued for the various dates 01.04.2014, 17.06.2014, 01.07.2014, 07.07.2014 are marked as Ex.A3to Ex.A6 respectively issued by the 4^th opposite party.  It is further seen that since the fault has not been rectified by the opposite parties 2to4 and the complainant issued legal notice Ex.A7 to the opposite parties 1to4 and the acknowledgement card for the receipt of the same are marked as Ex.A8 to Ex.A11 respectively and due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties 1to4 the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships.

16. While so, on careful perusal of the written version of the opposite party 2to 3 it is seen that they are neither the brand owner nor service contractor and infact the 4^th opposite party who is the authorized service centre must be rectified the defect and therefore the opposite parties 2and 3 are not at all responsible for any loss to the complainant.

17. Such being so, on going through the written version and proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1and 4 which are one of the same and categorically admitted that due to dissatisfaction of the product when the complainant and family decided to give back the unit to the 2^nd opposite party and arguing for cash back, though the opposite parties wish to settle the matter many times through arranging persons and giving replacement of a brand new unit.  But the complainant was not in the intention to settle the case and deputed 3^rd person into this, whoever no way related to this case and the complainant has filed the case intentionally for getting more compensation and for which Ex.B1 is marked.  

18. At the outset, on careful perusal of the rival submissions putforth on either side it is no doubt that there was a manufacturing defects in the Voltas Split AC Machine purchased by the complainant which is an admitted fact and also the same has been stated by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party.  Further, it is seen from the version of the 1^st opposite party and 4^th opposite party that they were ready to settle the matter but the complainant has not associated for the same.  In this regard, it is pertinent to note that Ex.B1 filed by the 1^st opposite party is not having any date and also no evidence to show that whether it has been received by the complainant.  Therefore it is crystal clear that the fact narrated by the opposite party 1and4 in their written version for the settlement is only after filing of this complaint not at the time of issuance of legal notice Ex.A7 from the complainant.  Moreover, the opposite parties 1to4 have not replied to the said legal notice Ex.A7.  Further, if the version of settlement was moved by the opposite parties 1and 4 even before the issue of notice or on filing of this complaint, it would have been informed by means of reply to the legal notice by the opposite parties 1and4 but the opposite parties 1and4 had failed to do so.  Therefore, such attitude of the opposite parties 1and 4 certainly has compelled the complainant to come forward this complaint having suffered the mental agony and hardships due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties 1and4.

19. In such circumstances though it is learnt that the opposite parties 2and 3 were set ex-parte after filing of the written version and the opposite parties 1and4 themselves admitted for the defects and ready to settle the matter after filing of this complaint.  It is pertinent to note that there is no deficiency of service on the side of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party.  Similarly from the evidence of the 1^st opposite party and gone through the facts and circumstances and also from the Ex.A3to Ex.A6 it is crystal clear that whenever the complainant approached the 4^th opposite party, the 4^th opposite party has taken immediate steps to rectify the defects in all times, but it could not be rectified because of the manufacturing defects.  So, the 4^th opposite party also has not committed any deficiency of service on his part.  In the end, it is crystal clear that the 1^st opposite party being the manufacturer only liable and responsible to pay the reasonable compensation to the complainant.

20. In the light of the above other facts and circumstances this forum holds that the deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party is only  proved by the complainant and in respect of the opposite parties 2to 4, the complainant has not proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 2to4.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

21. Point No.2:

As per the conclusion arrived in point No.1, the complainant is entitled to get relief from 1^st opposite party with reasonable compensation and cost.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the Result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, 1^st opposite party being a manufacturer, is only liable and directed to refund the cost price of the Voltas A/C to the tune of Rs.30,500/- (Rupees thirty thousand and five hundred only)  which already purchased by the complainant with condition that the complainant is instructed to hand over the defective Voltas AC while receive the said amount and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as a whole along with interest of 9% from the date of filing of this complaint (01.10.2014) to till date (27.11.2018) for causing mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.5.000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.  In respect of opposite parties 2to 4 this complaint is Dismissed without cost.

The above amount shall be payable by the 1^st opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this copy of the order,  failing which, this said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum till the date of payment.

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 of this 27^th November 2018.

                          MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

                Sd-                                                                                        Sd-

           MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT