Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/178/2014

M.P.Balasubramanian - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. SLY Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Aiyar & Dolia

13 Jun 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   10.04.2016

                                                                        Date of Order :   13.06.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE 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

C.C.NO. 178/2014

TUESDAY THIS  13^TH  DAY OF JUNE 2017

M.P. Balasubramanian,

New No.11/1, Bhagirathi Ammal,

Street, T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.                                        .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

M/s. SLY Enterprises,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

Mr. Yuvaraj,

Old No.16, New No.14,

Selvarangaraja Street,

Little Mount, Saidapet,

Chennai 600 015.                                         .. Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant           :    M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, T.Natarajan   

Counsel for opposite party        :    M/s.T. Ashok Kumar & another    

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 refund the cost of the 24V Aqua Guard brand pump of Rs.3500/- along with interest and also to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony and Rs.15,000/- as cost of the complaint.

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

         The complainant submit that  he had purchased 24 V  Aqua Guard Motor Pump for using RO System from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.1600/- and the same was fitted to the RO system by a qualified Aqua Guard RO System technician on 5.3.2014 at the house of the complainant.    However once the water got refilled to the RO System tank, it was leaking through one of the water inlet / outlet pipe continuously.  The complainant further state that the Aqua Guard technician on checking the RO System observed that one of the inlet / outlet valve in the newly purchased pump developed a crack and the same is broken.  Instantly the same was informed to the opposite party through the phone by the complainant as well as the technician and the opposite party made a promise to look into the matter on the next day when his office will be opened and ready to rectify the defect.

 

2.     Immediately the complainant informed the fact to the opposite party on 10.3.2014 requested to replace the motor pump sold by the opposite party to rectify the crack in the outlet pipe.    The opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects or replace the motor.   Accordingly the complainant issued a legal notice to opposite party on 15.3.2014 for which the opposite party denied the liability and sent a reply by its letter dated 17.3.2014.    As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

 

3. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

         The opposite party denies all the averments made therein except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable in law and on facts and has to be dismissed in limini.   The opposite party state that admits the purchase of a 24V pump by the complainant for Rs.1,600/- on 4.3.2014.  At the time of selling the pump the complainant thoroughly checked the pump which is free from any defects and only after his entire satisfaction he purchased the said pump.     On 9.3.2014  the complainant informed about the development of a crack and breakage in the pump and insisted for an immediate replacement.    On 10.3.2014  when the pump was inspected by the opposite party, it was found that the pump was carelessly and roughly handled in a negligent manner and so that the outlet valve was broken.   But the pump was broken due to rough and careless handling and hence it cannot be replaced.    The opposite party politely replied that if the pump is suffered with any technical problem or manufacturing defect the same will be replaced with free of cost within six months.    It is important to note that the damage to the pump is caused only due to rough and careless handling by the complainant’s side.   If the pump is produced before this forum the hollowness in the complainant’s claim will be established.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party  filed and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the opposite party.  

5.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

1. ^{Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3500/- towards the cost of the 24 V Aqua Guard  brand pump with interest as prayed for ?}

 

2. ^{Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony due to deficiency of service committed by the opposite party with cost of Rs.15000/- as prayed for ?}

 

^{6.  POINTS :-  1 & 2}

        ^{Admittedly the complainant purchased 24 V Aqua Guard Motor Pump for using RO system from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,750/- as per Ex.A1.   The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that on 5.3.2014 the said motor pump was fixed in the RO system by a technician of the said Aqua Guard Company.   On using the Aqua Guard the complainant noted a leakage in the outlet pipe of the Motor Pump.   Hence on 9.3.2014 once again the above said technician of the Aqua Guard Company was called and checked and found that there is a crack in the outlet pipe.  The technician instructed the complainant to replace the outlet pipe.   Immediately the complainant informed the fact to the opposite party on 10.3.2014 requested to replace the motor pump sold by the opposite party to rectify the crack in the outlet pipe.   Since the opposite party refused to do so the complainant issued notice Ex.A4 to the opposite party.   The opposite party sent a reply Ex.A5 also.  Thereafter the complainant purchased 24 V Aqua Guard Motor pump from the Aqua Guard Company itself for a sum of Rs.3,500/- and installed.  Since the opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects or replace the motor the complainant was constrained to file this case for claiming compensation with cost.}

^{7.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the motor pump was sold for a sum of Rs.1600/- which is pleaded in the complainant itself.    The allegation of the complainant is that  outlet of the motor pump was damaged.  There is no technical problem or manufacturing defect in the Motor Pump is admitted.   The only defect is damage of the outlet pipe.   The learned counsel for the opposite party contented that the motor pump was fixed by a technician of the Aqua Guard RO system who is having similar motor pump for sale.    Admittedly the complainant has not availed the service of the opposite party for duly fixing of the motor pump in the Aqua Guard system.    The alleged damage of the outlet of motor pump is only due to the wrong and rough handling, coupled with wrong fitting by the Aqua Guard Technician.   The learned counsel for the opposite party demonstrated with a motor pump of such brand with a plastic knob before this forum in the presence of members.   Accordingly once the knob was fixed in the outlet pipe of the motor pump for re-fixing much care shall be exercised.   If the handling is very rough or wrong handling or wrong fitting the outlet pipe in the motor pump knob will be damaged.   Since the outlet pipe in the motor pump is a plastic part.   In this case is damage is caused by the technician of Aqua Guard.   In the outlet pipe knob such plastic part shall have neither manufacturing defect nor mechanical defect never arise.   Since the damage is due to technician of Aqua Guard RO system engaged by the complainant the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.}   

^{8.     Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that after purchase of the Motor Pump the complainant has not availed the service of the qualified Engineer or the technician of the opposite party is admitted.  The claim of compensation of Rs.3,500/- by the complainant towards the cost price of the Motor Pump purchased from Eureka Forbes cannot be granted.   Since the complainant purchased the Motor Pump from the opposite party only for a sum of Rs.1,600/- having no  guarantee or warranty and handle in a rough manner by the Technician of Aqua Guard  damaged the plastic outlet pipe knob.   Further the claim of Rs.25,000/- for damages and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the complaint is baseless exorbitant and imaginary.  The complainant knowing fully well purchased a local make motor having no warranty and no guarantee and fitted by the Aqua Guard Technician in the Aqua Guard RO System who is having branded motor establishes the negligent  act of the complainant.     Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the  compliant is dismissed.  No cost and points 1 & 2 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  13^th  day  of  June 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1-  4.3.2014   - Copy of the bill issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A2- 14.3.2014  - Copy of bill issued by M/s. Eurekha Forbe Co. Ltd to the

                              Complainant.

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of price list 24V Pump supplied by M/s. Eurekha Forbe

                               Co. Ltd. To the complainant.

Ex.A4- 15.3.2014  - Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant.

Ex.A5- 17.3.2014  - Copy of reply to the notice from the opposite party.

Ex.A6- 17.3.2014  - Copy of Ack. card received from opposite party.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

Ex.B1- 17.3.2014  - Copy of reply from the opposite party.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.