Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

32/2010

Mr.Venkatesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

m/S.Digi Pro Hearing Aids,Manager & another - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.J.Prisicilla Pandian

02 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 07.01.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 02.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 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

 

C.C. No.32 /2010

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 02^ND DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

Mr. Venkatesh,

S/o. Mr. K. Sethuraman,

Old No.2A/9, Rajeshwari Street,

Perambur,

Chennai – 600 011.                                             .. Complainant.                                                            ..Versus..

 

1. Digi Pro Hearing Aids,

Rep. by Mr. Peter,

Old No.87, New No.74,

Mc Nicholas Road,

Chetpet,

Chennai – 600 031.

 

2.  GN Resound India Private Limited,

Rep. by its Director,

Elite House, Plot No.37,

Mahesh C Wing,

Sector 15, CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai – 400 614.                                         ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. J. Prisicilla Pandian & another

Counsel for opposite parties    :  M/s. Y.N. Venkatraj & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.22,000/- for the hearing aid instrument, to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

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

The complainant purchased a digital hearing aid instrument namely DOT-10 6^th generation hearing aid with 9 channel bearing serial No.0926001487 on 20.05.2009 for a sum of Rs.22,000/- from the 1^st opposite party who is the dealer of hearing aid instrument.  The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of such instrument.  Further the complainant submits that, the complainant suffers partial deafness in the right ear.  On medical advice, he wanted to purchase the hearing aid instrument for his personal use and purchased the above said hearing aid instrument and fixed in the ear of the complainant.  Suddenly on 26.10.2009, the complainant was not able to hear any sound during the warranty period.  Hence on 27.10.2009, the complainant went to the 1^st opposite party and handed over the hearing aid instrument for due check up and service.  The 1^st opposite party received the instrument and forwarded the same to the 2^nd opposite party at Mumbai.   On 30.10.2009, the complainant went to the ENT Doctor for due check up regarding wax in the ear.  The doctor after due examination reported that the complainant has no such wax problem.   Further the complainant submits that the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards service charges alleging that the complainant has mishandled the hearing aid instrument resulting damage.   Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated:10.11.2009 to the opposite parties.  The legal notice sent to the 1^st opposite party was returned with remarks as “unclaimed / intimation delivered”.  The 2^nd opposite party after receiving the notice sent reply with untenable contention on 19.11.2009.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint is filed.

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

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that, the 1^st opposite party is admittedly, an authorised dealer of the 2^nd opposite party who is a world renowned company at Denmark manufacturing hearing aids for the past 25 years and maintain high quality international standards.  Further the opposite parties state that the complainant only had chosen to purchase a miniature master piece microscopic size hearing aid instrument which concealed inside the ear canal itself not easily visible to the public glare.   The warranty card itself shows several conditions in usage.   Further the opposite parties state that on 27.10.2009, the complainant approached the opposite party stating that hearing aid instrument gone dead and it should be serviced.  Immediately, the said instrument was forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party at Mumbai for service after providing a temporary hearing aid instrument as a service gesture.  On 02.11.2009, the 2^nd opposite party sent back the hearing aid after service enclosing a report stating that ‘micro receiver’ a vital component in the ear piece, was moisture laden and is completely damaged on account of the carelessness and poor maintenance against the instructions of handling.  Further the opposite parties state that the complainant might have used the hearing aid instrument while taking bath without removing it or wax and water secretions in the ear, failed to clean the ear etc.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.22,000/- paid towards the hearing aid instrument as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

5.     On point:

Both parties has not turned up to advance any oral arguments for a long time, hence oral arguments of both parties closed.   The opposite parties filed written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   Admittedly, the complainant purchased a digital hearing aid instrument namely DOT-10 6^th generation hearing aid with 9 channel bearing serial No.0926001487 on 20.05.2009 for a sum of Rs.22,000/- as per Ex.A1 from the 1^st opposite party who is the dealer of hearing aid instrument.  The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of such instrument.  Further the contention of the complainant is that, the complainant suffers partial deafness in the right ear.  On medical advice, he wanted to purchase the hearing aid instrument for his personal use and purchased the above said hearing aid instrument and fixed in the ear of the complainant.  Suddenly on 26.10.2009, the complainant was not able to hear any sound during the warranty period.  Ex.A2 is the warranty card.  Hence on 27.10.2009, the complainant went to the 1^st opposite party and handed over the hearing aid instrument for due check up and service.  The 1^st opposite party received the instrument and forwarded the same to the 2^nd opposite party at Mumbai.   On 30.10.2009, the complainant went to the ENT Doctor for due check up regarding wax in the ear.  The doctor after due examination reported that the complainant has no such wax problem.   Ex. A7 is the doctor prescription.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards service charges alleging that the complainant has mishandled the hearing aid instrument resulting damage.   Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated:10.11.2009 as per Ex.A4.   The legal notice sent to the 1^st opposite party was returned as ‘unclaimed’.  The 2^nd opposite party after receiving the notice sent reply with untenable contention on 19.11.2009 as per Ex.A6.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming compensation  of Rs.1,50,000/- with cost of the hearing aid instrument.

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that, the 1^st opposite party is admittedly, an authorised dealer of the 2^nd opposite party who is a world renowned company at Denmark manufacturing hearing aids for the past 25 years and maintain high quality international standards.  But the opposite parties has not produced any record to prove the same.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant after careful perusal of several model decided to purchase a miniature master piece microscopic size hearing aid instrument which concealed inside the ear canal itself not easily visible to the public glare.   The warranty card itself shows several conditions in usage.   But the opposite party has not produced any document to prove such condition.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that on 27.10.2009, the complainant approached the opposite party stating that hearing aid instrument gone dead and it should be serviced.  Immediately, the said instrument was forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party at Mumbai for service after providing a temporary hearing aid instrument as a service gesture.  On 02.11.2009, the 2^nd opposite party sent back the hearing aid instrument after service enclosing a report stating that ‘micro receiver’ a vital component in the ear piece, was moisture laden and is completely damaged on account of the carelessness and poor maintenance against the instructions of handling.  But the opposite parties has not produced any document.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant might have used the hearing aid instrument while taking bath without removing it or wax and water secretions in the ear, failed to clean the ear etc.   But as per Ex.A7, there is no wax in the ear while submitting the hearing aid instrument for service.    The 1^st opposite party has not raised any contention that the hearing aid instrument used while bathing or used without cleaning proves the deficiency in service.  The opposite party also has not taken any positive steps to prove the poor maintenance of the instrument as alleged by them.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall provide a brand new model hearing aid instrument within one month failing which the opposite parties shall pay the cost price of Rs.22,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to  provide a brand new Digital Hearing Aid instrument of the complaint mentioned model within one month  from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, to refund a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand  only) towards the cost price of the complainant’s Hearing Aid instrument and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) being the cost of litigation to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd day of July 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of invoice
		Copy of warranty card for Model DOT 10 (No.2011/06/16692)
		Copy of letter of acknowledgement from the 1st opposite party
		Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties
		Copy of returned cover from the 1st opposite party
		Copy of reply from the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of Doctor Prescription

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT