Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/21/2015

Devavarapu Surya Prakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

A.Venkateswara Rao

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                       Date of filing:   02.04.2015

                                                                                                        Date of Order: 17.03.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                          PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

                 Thursday, the 17^th day of March, 2016

 

 

C.C.No.21 /2015

Between:-

 

Devavarapu Surya Prakash, S/o. Nookaraju,

Aged 43 years, employee in G.W. Division in

Nidadavolu and resident of D.No.10-122/10,

Sai Priyanka Avenue, Cotton Peta, Dowlaiswaram.                            …        Complainant

 

                                    And

 

1)  M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Agencies,

      IFB Point, 7-27-12/3, Baruvari Street,

      Balaji Towers, T. Nagar, Rajahmundry-533 101.

 

2)  Sri Durga Services, IFB Customer Care,

      Reddimma Complex, V.T. College Road,

      Kotipalli Bus Stand, Rajahmundry-533 101.

 

3)  IFB Industries Limited, Plot No.IND-5, Sector-1,

      East Kolkata Township, Kolkata, West Bengal-700088.               …       Opposite parties

 

 

 

            This case coming on 04.03.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri Appana Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri S.G. Shankar, Advocate for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, Member] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the defective dish washer with brand new one without any defects or alternatively to refund the invoice amount of dish washer of Rs.32,900/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till payment; pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony and pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant is that he purchased one IFB Dish Washer Neptune DX, S.No.01631315000 770690380 from the 1^st opposite party under their Invoice for Rs.32,900/- on 27.11.2013 for which the 2^nd opposite party is the service center and the 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer at Kolkata.  From the date of purchase, the dish washer is giving troubles i.e. there is manufacturing defects in dish washer. The complainant made several phone calls to the 1^st opposite party to rectify the same, but the 1^st opposite party is not respond properly and he gave online complaint on 17.2.2015, but there is no response. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice on 21.2.2015 and 9.3.2015, but except receipt of notices, there is no compliance or response from the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.

3.         The 3^rd opposite party filed its written version and the same was adopted by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and denied all the allegations made by the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. This opposite party denied that from the date of purchase, the Dish Washer is suffering from the defects and that several phone calls were made by the complainant and that there is inherent manufacturing defect. This opposite party submits that the complainant has purchased the dish washer after satisfying himself about the make and performance of the same and he would not have taken delivery of the same had there been any inherent defects. The Dish washer sold to the complainant is covered by a warranty for a period of two years from the date of purchase. The fact that the complainant gave his complaint on 17.2.2015 itself explains  that it worked perfectly from 27.11.2013, the day on which it was purchased and the same goes to show that there is no inherent defects as alleged in the complaint. The warranty stipulates certain terms and conditions under which the warranty is applicable. The warranty clearly states that it does not apply in case of Rat Bite, Burning of electrical parts arising out of electricity voltage fluctuations etc. This opposite party submits that on 17.2.2015, this opposite party on receiving complaint at 4.55 p.m. directed one of its technicians to attend the complaint at 6.20 p.m. on 17.2.2015. The technician duly inspected the dishwasher  in the presence of the consumer/complainant and recorded his findings. According to the findings, the device was Rat bitten which was not revealed by the complainant herein. The complainant refused to sign the visit/job card dt.17.2.2015 stating that he would consult his lawyer and then sign. This opposite party submits that from the above, it is evident that the complainant failed to maintain the device in accordance with the guidelines and terms laid out in warranty and instead trying to implicate the opposite parties in a non-existent dispute and thereby gain wrongfully. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.  

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A4 have been marked. The proof affidavit filed by the 3^rd opposite party and Exs.B1 and B2 have been marked.

5.         Heard both sides.

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

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

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

 

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  As per the details of the complaint, it is observed that the complainant purchased one IFB Dish washer, Neptune DX, S.No.01631315000 770690380 from the 1^st opposite party dealer on 27.11.2013 for an amount of Rs.32,900/- vide Invoice No.312 as per Ex.A1. The 2^nd opposite party is the service center and the 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer. The complainant alleged that the said Dish washer is not working properly and made phone calls several times to rectify the defects in the Dish washer and whenever contacted the 1^st opposite party, they replied to contact the 2^nd opposite party service center for any rectification of defect. The complainant further alleged that the said Dish washer had inherent manufacturing defect and so, it should be replaced with a brand new one. Ex.A2 is the User manual including warranty issued by the 3^rd opposite party at the time of purchase of the above said dish washer. As there is no response from the opposite parties with regard to defects in the dish washer, the complainant got issued legal notices to the opposite parties on 21.2.2015 vide Ex.A3 and 9.3.2015 vide Ex.A4 and the opposite parties received the said notices, but kept quiet.     

            The 3^rd opposite party filed its version, which was adopted by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and contended that the complainant filed this complaint with an interior motive of causing loss to the reputation of the opposite parties and for wrongful gain. The 3^rd opposite party further contended that the complainant purchased after satisfying himself about the make and performance of the dish washer only purchased from the 1^st opposite party and it worked perfectly until 17.2.2015. This 3^rd opposite party gave warranty of two years from the date of purchase for the said dish washer. It is further submitted by the 3^rd opposite party that the complainant gave the complaint on 17.2.2015 at 4.55 PM and the technician attended to the said complaint at 6.20 PM on 17.2.2015 itself and the technician inspected the dish washer in the presence of consumer/complainant and recorded his findings. According to the job card vide Ex.B2 dt.17.2.2015 under Job card No.14940289, the technician recorded that the device was rat bitten and the complainant refused to sign on the job card stating that he would consult his lawyer and then sign only on the job card.   

            When we observed that Ex.B2 job card, the technician, who attended on the dish washer of the complainant after receipt of call at 4.55 PM on 17.2.2015 recorded his findings as dish washer rat bitten and circulation, drain motor, wiring jocks were damaged. It is further observed that vide customers satisfaction report, the said technician recorded that customer is not signed and stated that he will sign after confirmation with his lawyer. It is further observed that as per warranty given by the 3^rd opposite party under Ex.A2 = Ex.B1, the warranty is not applicable in case of defects arising with optional accessories like trolleys, rat mesh, machine cover, online filter, inlet/exhaust extension hoses, tap adopter, extended power supply cable, adjustment feet cover etc. thereof. As per the Ex.B2 job card, it was clearly mentioned that the dish washer was bitten by the rat, circulation, drain motor and wiring jock was damaged. So, as per the warranty, the rat mesh was an optional accessory at the choice of the consumer/complainant. In the present case, it is evident that there was no rat mesh to the above said dish washer in dispute and so, the rats bitten the wiring jock and circulation of drain motor. We further observed that the complainant used the said dish washer for about one year and three months after its purchase and the dish washer was stopped functioning only due to rat menace, but not because of inherent manufacturing defect in the dish washer.

            With the above said discussion and under the facts and circumstances of the complaint, the complainant failed to establish negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

 

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs.   

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 17^th day of March, 2016.

    

                  Sd/-xxx                                                                                         Sd/-xxx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                         FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

 

Ex.A1    Invoice from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.32,900/- dt.27.11.2013 bearing No.312.

Ex.A2    Customer details cum warranty booklet issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A3    Notice dt.27.2.2015 with postal receipts and served ack. dues.

Ex.A4    Notice dt.9.3.2015 with postal receipt and served ack. due.

 

FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:-       

 

Ex.B1    Copy of User Manual.

Ex.B2    Job card/Installation sheet.

 

                Sd/-xxx                                                                                    Sd/-xxx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)