Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/373/2018

K.S.Ravishankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Eureka Forbes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.Sathya Narayanan

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

 

  Complaint presented on :24.04.2012      

      Date of disposal            :05.08.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

            PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                        : MEMBER-1

THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA     : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.373/2018

 

DATED FRIDAY THE 05^th  DAY AUGUST OF 2022

K.S. Ravishankar,

S/o. K.S. Sadasivam,

Flat No.S-6 Rao Chandrika Apartments,

No.100/230, GST Road, Chrompet,

Chennai-44

                                                                                      .…..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

C&D-V Level 4, AnmolPalani, No.88, G.N. Chetty Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-17                                                                                                                                                                          …..Opposite Party

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                           : M/s. S.Sathya Narayanan

 

Counsel for  opposite party                          : M/s. K.SubbuRangaBharathi and 3

                                                                   others

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT :

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite part to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in work.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 111/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.373/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he has purchased as Aquaguard Classic Water pump originally from the opposite party in the year 2005 and same was installed on 03.08.2005. The complainant has entered into a contract with the opposite party for annual maintenance of the same in the year 2005 and the same was extended by a renewal in the year 2008.The complainant stated that the service manager of the opposite party has also assured that he will attend to it and also stated by way of a letter dated 20.10.2010 that annual maintenance care period will be extended for one year based on the original service agreement dated 19.08.2008 due to mandatory services not completed between 2008-2009.  The complainant stated that the service supervisor also admitted the fact that the annual maintenance care period will be up to 22.08.2012 and also stated that the amount paid towards annual maintenance care is not refundable .  The complainant stated that the complainant has been advised to exchange the old unit by way purchasing a Protek Pump by replacing classic pump, which he has purchased originally.  One Senthilkumar advised the complainant has chosen to purchase a new one on the assurance that the balance amount pending with the opposite party annual maintenance care will be refunded to him.  But no one turned up till date the people of the opposite party have not chosen neither to take care of the unit as agreed nor refund.  The people of opposite party have not replied the letter of the complainant. The complainant stated that the act of the opposite party is deficiency in service and liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party denies all the allegations stated by the complainant except those, which are specifically admitted thereon. The opposite party is leading company in manufacturing and marketing water purifiersvaccum cleaners etc.  and having good name and reputation among the public and further in the later part alleged that the complaint is bad for non joinder of manufacturer of the product and the complainant has not filed any documentary proof  for the alleged defect in the machine and the said machine was in working good condition from the beginning and that is why the complainant entered in to AMC contract in the year 2005 and in the year 2008 which was extended upto 22.08.2012.  The complainant has not followed the procedures and instructions given in the instruction manual and further contended that the complainant exchanged the old water pump and bought a new one on his own accord and accordingly the balance of AMC of Rs. 2312/- was also refunded to him on 15.12.2012 and therefore contended there was no cause of action in the complaint and no deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. Further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

 

 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

Both side arguments heard. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A8 were marked on his side and written arguments.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked on the opposite party side and written arguments. 

4. POINT NO :1 :-

                   The complainant purchased an Aqua guard classic water pump from the opposite party which was installed on 03.08.2005.  The complainant entered into annual maintenance contract in the year 2005 which was extended by the renewal in the year 2008, it is alleged by the complainant that the unit was not working properly from the beginning and fallen continuous repairs and inspite of several request the opposite party has not turned up for service as assured and hence the complainant asked for refund of annual maintenance amount it is further stated that the complainant was advised to exchange the old unit by purchasing the protek pump and hence he purchased a new one on assurance that the balance amount pending with the opposite party towards annual maintenance care will be refunded, but inspite of several request and phone call the opposite party has not returned that amount and hence claimed Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service. 

          5. But on the otherhand the opposite party contended that they are leading manufacturing and marketing company having good reputation among the public and further contended in the later part of written version that the petition is bad for non joinder of manufacturer and further stated that the complainant purchased the water pump 03.08.2005 and further contended that the complainant himself was satisfied with the service provider and hence renewed the annual maintenance contract in the year 2008 which was extended upto 22.08.2012 and according to the opposite party the complainant refused even the mandatory service to be done by the opposite party and contended that the complainant has not followed the procedure mentioned in the user manual and there was no defect in the machine and it was working in good condition and complainant exchanged the old water pump and bought a new one without any compulsion and the AMC balance amount of Rs.2312/- was refunded to the complainant on 15.12.2012 and therefore contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

          6. The tax invoice of the new protect purifier is marked as Ex.A2 it is found from Ex.A5 that the complainant on purchase of new water purifier by exchanging his old aqua guard which was under AMC with the opposite party, but the AMC amount was not refunded to him as assured by the opposite party.  The letter by the complainant and the legal notice with similar request were marked as Ex.A6 and A7.  It is found from Ex.A8 the opposite party has refunded the balance of AMC of Rs.2312/- by Cheque dated 15.12.2011.  It is also admitted by the complainant in   para.10 of the complaint but inspite of the same the complainant filed this complaint on 24.04.2012 without encashing the cheque with intention to get unlawful enrichment.  It is found that the complainant has not filed any documents or photos to prove that the machine was not working properly.  The complainant has also relied upon a decision reported in Civil Appeal No.5759/2009 SGS India Ltd VS Dolphin International Ltd, Dated:06.10.2010 Supreme Court of India . No report by a technician or expert opinion is filed by the complainant to prove that the machine was not working properly from the beginning.  The nature of the defect is also not mentioned in the complaint. Since the opposite party already refunded the balance of AMC even before filing the complaint there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and consequently there is no loss and hardship suffered by the complainant and hence it is found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.Point no 1 answered accordingly.

7. Point. No.2:-

        Based on findings given to the Point.No.1  there is no deficiency in service on the part of  Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Point No.2 answered accordingly.

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

          Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 05^th   day of  August 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	28.10.2010	Letter sent by opposite party.
Ex.A2	12.01.2011	Tax invoice in respect of Aquaguard total protect purifier.
Ex.A3	12.01.2011	Payment receipt issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A4	12.01.2011	Delivery challan issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A5	14.06.2011	Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A6	01.11.2011	Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A7	29.11.2011	Legal notice sent by the complainant with acknowledgement.
Ex.A8	15.12.2011	Cheque issued by the opposite party voluntarily.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

                   

-NIL-

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT