Date of Complaint : 27.01.2014
Date of Order :11.04.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 63 / 2014
THIS MONDAY 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
V. C. Chakrpani,
Plot No.3484 TNHB,
Avadi,
Chennai 54. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
1. IFB Industries Limited, By its Manager, Home Appliances Division, Plot No.IND 5 Sector 1, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata 700 107. 2. M/s. Cira Gypsum Trading Pvt. Ltd., By its Manager, (IFB Point), Arihant – VTN – Square, Old No.104 New No.58, Gopathy Narayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. .. Opposite parties. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : Mr. S.Natarajan
For the opposite party-1 : Exparte
For the opposite party-2 : Dismissed on 22.9.2015
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the IFB Washing Machine Model Direct Drive BKG Digital 1200 RPM with a 1400 RPM or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.33,500/- being the cost paid for the washing machine with interest and also Rs.60,000/- as damages for deficiency in service and mental agony and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 1st opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the 1st opposite party was set exparte on 19.8.2014. The complaint against the 2nd opposite party dismissed on 22.9.2015.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’s counsel.
4. The complainant contended that he placed orders for purchase of IFB Washing Machine Model Direct Drive BKG Digital 1400 RPM in exchange of his old washing machine with the 2nd opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.33,500/- on 5.5.2012. But on delivery he found that the washing machine was with 1200 RPM. When he made complaint to the 2nd opposite party they assured for replacement. Since there was no response from them and even to the calls made to the 1st opposite party he sent a letter dated 6.12.2012 to the 2nd opposite party and also sent a letter to the 1st opposite party on 10.1.2013. Since there was no reply he sent a legal notice to the opposite parties dated 2.2.2013. Despite of receipt of notice there was no reply or replacement. As such he suffered grave loss with washing machine of lesser RPM than the one booked and paid for and also put to untold misery due to the deficiency of service of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint claiming to replace the IFB Washing Machine Model Direct Drive BKG Digital 1200 RPM with a 1400 RPM or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.33,500/- being the cost paid for the washing machine with interest and also Rs.60,000/- as damages for deficiency in service and mental agony and cost of the complaint.
5. The complainant contended that he purchased an IFB washing machine for which he also submitted receipt for payment of Rs.33,500/- i.e.Ex.A1. But the allegation of the complainant is that instead of delivering 1400 RPM IFB washing machine the 2nd opposite party delivered washing machine of only 1200 RPM. The complainant himself admitted that the 2nd opposite party failed to deliver or replace with the 1400 RPM washing machine. Hence as per his contention the 2nd opposite party only had committed deficiency of service. The complainant also sent legal notice as well as letter to the opposite parties i.e. Ex.A2, Ex.A3, and Ex.A4. From the contention of the complainant the 2nd opposite party had been negligent in his act and delivered a different washing machine from one which has been ordered by him though acceptable it reveals that the order/ delivery is contract between the dealer and the customer, as such in respect of the above said allegations the 2nd opposite party had not replaced with a 1400 RPM washing machine even after receipt of legal notice, had committed deficiency of service and as such the complainant suffered mental agony is acceptable. Whereas on perusal of the complaint it reveals that the complainant neither furnished the correct address of the 2nd opposite party nor taken steps to the 2nd opposite party’s correct address inspite of several adjournments and as such the complaint as against the 2nd opposite party was dismissed on 22.9.2015. It appears that though according to the complainant, the 2nd opposite party committed deficiency in service the complainant miserably failed to take steps against the 2nd opposite party as such the relief claiming that the 2nd opposite party had committed deficiency of service is not sustainable and as such the complainant is not entitled for the 1st relief sought for in the complaint and due to which he is not entitled for the other reliefs also.
6. Moreover the complainant had not produced the purchase bill describing the 1400 RPM as averred in his complaint or any other document to establish his case apart from the letter and the legal notice.
7. Furthermore the complainant sought for relief as against both the opposite parties is not sustainable since the duty of delivery is solely binding by the dealer i.e. the 2nd opposite party with whom the complainant had placed order. As such the 2nd opposite party is solely responsible for delivery and for deficiency in service as per this case.
8. As such the question of liability for the 1st opposite party will not arise since the 1st opposite party is only a manufacturer. Hence claiming relief against the 1st opposite party is not sustainable and the complaint against the 1st opposite party is liable to be dismissed. Therefore as discussed above the complainant is not entitled for any relief as against the opposite parties.
9. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as discussed above we are of the considered view that the complaint against the 1st opposite party is liable to be dismissed and since the complainant failed to take steps to 2nd opposite party, complaint against the 2nd opposite party was already dismissed on 22.9.2015, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought for in the complaint. Therefore we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. No cost.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 3rd day of March 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 5.5.2012 - Copy of receipt.
Ex.A2- 6.12.2012 - Copy of complainant’s letter to 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A3- 10.1.2013 - Copy of complainant’s letter to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A4- 2.2.2013 - Copy of legal notice.
Opposite party’s side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
