Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

689/2009

V.Narayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Bright N Power Elecronics - Opp.Party(s)

T.R.Sethuraman

09 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 17.06.2009

                                                                                                                            Date of Order : 09.03.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                             : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                          :  MEMBER-I

      DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

CC. NO.689 /2009

FRIDAY  THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2018

                                              

V. Narayanan,

No.1007, 67^th Street,

7^th Sector,

K.K. Nagar,

Chennai 600 078.                                                        .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

M/s. Bright N Power Electronics,

No.17/8A New Colony Main Road,

Alwarthiru Nagar,

Chennai 600 087.                                            ..  Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for complainant            :  M/s. T.R.Sethuraman    

Counsel for opposite party         :  M/s. T.Ravikumar

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to replace the inverter or the cost of the inverter of Rs.16,000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,41,875/- towards compensation for loss of wages and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.  

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that  the opposite party is a dealer dealing with the inverters.  The opposite party’s representative one Mr. Selvakumar approached the complainant  about 8 or 9 months ago and canvassed the sale of 800 VA inverter with 130 AH SF Battery at Rs.16000/- and assured that the said system would provide uninterrupted power supply for 8 tube lights and 4 fans for continuously 3 to 4 hours.  After assessing the complainant’s power requirements  on 10.9.2008 the complainant bought the inverter power system believing the above representation of the opposite party’s.  He found to his dismay that the said inverter system works / supplies power only for one hour and fifteen minutes alone for lighting 8 tube lights and for 2 fans.   As a result the complainant workmen could not work properly for the full 8 working hours without lights or fans in his premises hence the complainant sustained loss of wages for one hour and forty five minutes per day of 25 workers.   The complainant further state that the action of the opposite party in misrepresenting to this complainant about the work capacity of the inverter and 18 months guarantee amounts to Unfair trade practice. Therefore the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party on 16.3.2009 but the opposite party sent evasive  reply notice on 2.4.2009.  Such act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party state that as per the records maintained by the opposite party the customer to whom the product sold was one Mr.V. Narayanan residing at No.507 B Nagappa Nagar, Kumbakkonam Road, Panruti and not as alleged by the complainant in the complaint as residing at K.K. Nagar, Chennai.  It is submitted that the opposite party are not aware of the functioning of the office of complainant and the particulars of his workers and hence puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party submit that  only through Pondicherry Branch 800 VA inverter was supplied to the complainant and not from Madras Mr.Selvakumar never assured the complainant that the inverter supplied would supply electricity for running 8 tube lights and 4 fans for 3 or 4 hours as alleged by the complainant and the said statement is false.   Further the opposite party state that the complainant has purchased the inverter of the latest which is technically advanced model is 1) Pure sine wave output 2) Smart overload sense and short circuit protection 3) smart SMPS technology 4) there is no connection between the backup hours and the inverter.  The backup hour is based on the battery.  In order to sustain the backup for 3 to 4 hours, the battery has to be recharged for 8 to 10 hours before the said things is to be achieved.  There was frequent power cut in his area and therefore it seems that he could not recharge his battery adequately for obtaining the optimum usage.   Therefore the opposite party are not responsible for his mistakes committed by the complainant.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no document marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,41,8756/-  at the rate of Rs.1093.75 per day from 10.9.2008 towards loss of wages as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to replacement of inverter or the cost of the inverter of Rs.16,000/- with interest as prayed for ?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5000/- as prayed for ?

5.   POINTS 1 to 3 :

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Heard the complainant counsel  also.  Perused the records (viz.) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is the owner of Cashew processing Unit purchased an inverter for a sum of Rs.16,000/- from the opposite party for the personal use, in the processing unit after seeing the brochure of the opposite party as per Ex.A1.   Further the contention of the complainant is that  the sales representative of the opposite party one Mr. Selvakumar who explained to the complainant  that the inverter would provide uninterrupted power supply for 3 to 4 hours to keep, complainant’s tube lights-8, and fans-2 as per brochure & 4^th specification and invoice.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1  brochure & Ex.A3 invoice there is nothing about 8 tube lights and two fans can keep functioning.   Further the complainant contended that the inverter  supplied by the opposite party was able to sustain only for one hour and 15 minutes for 8 tube lights and only two fans as against 4 fans promised  by the opposite party.   But there is no record, except legal notice Ex.A4.  Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the improper supply of inverter the complainant’s workman was affected; causing loss of Rs.193.75 per day to this complainant.  For that also the complainant has not produced  any record.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party misrepresented that there is a warranty for 18 months and supplied inferior product of inverter which caused great loss and mental agony.  But the complainant has not taken any steps to prove the quality of inverter by way of obtaining expert opinion.  

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that  this forum having no jurisdiction to entertain this claim  since admittedly the alleged product was sold at Pondicherry which was situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.  As per records maintained by the opposite party the bill/invoice issued for purchase of inverter was in the name of the complainant who was residing at No.507 B, Nagappa Nagar, Kumbakkonam Road, Panruti, 106.   The present address K.K. Nagar Chennai given in the complaint has nothing to do with the sale of the inverter and the transaction related to this case.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the inverter was fixed at Cuddalore address mentioned in the invoice.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the alleged function of the product of inverter will give inferior quality  has not been proved by the opposite party except issuing legal notice for which suitable reply in detail has given.   The inverter supplied of 800 VA  130 AH battery the same would work only for 6 tubes lights and three fans and that regularly it had to be recharged.    In this case the complainant has not stated anything about the usage by proper charging.  The complainant had added   additional fans and tubes for drawing the power which would not achieve the optimum usage for which the opposite party cannot be  claimed.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that from the Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 is very clear that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party or there was no unfair trade practice as alleged.  The claim of Rs.2,41,8756/- towards loss of wages cannot be claimed without proving the deficiency in service.  Equally the replacement of inverter or the cost of the inverter cannot be claimed mere using the words inferior quality without any proof   The complainant has not taken any steps to prove the quality of product by way of expert opinion also.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in this case and the points are answered accordingly.

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

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 9^th day of March 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-             - Copy of opposite party’s Brochure.

Ex.A2- 10.9.2008 – Copy of Delivery challan.

Ex.A3-             - Copy of invoice.

Ex.A4- 16.3.2009 - Copy of notice issued by the complainant.

Ex.A5- 2.4.2009  - Copy of reply.

Ex.A6- 10.9.2008 - Copy of Guarantee card.

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  .. Nil..

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.