Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

203/2013

Mrs.G.GeethaW/o.M.Jayachandran,Mr.M.Jayachandran,Both residing at - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Eureka Forbes,Ammol palani, - Opp.Party(s)

D.Prabu Muhund Arulkumar

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  15.10.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  20.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 20^th   DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.203/2013

 

1.Mrs.G.Geetha,

W/o. M.Jayachandran,

 

2.Mr.M.Jayachandran,

Both Residing at

No.20/6, West Mada Veethi,

Kaladipet, Chennai –600 019.

                                                                                         ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.M/s.Eureka Forbes, Rep by its Director (Managing Director) Ammol Palani, No.88, Block No.B5, Level – III, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.   2.M/s.Eureka Forbes, Rep by its Director (Managing Director) B1/B2, 701, 7th Floor, Marathon, Next Gen – Marathan, Innova Off Ganpatrao, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.       3. M/s.Eureka Forbes, Rep by its Director (Managing Director) (Customer Care Center), New No.560, Old No.616, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.   4.Mr.Vinoth Kumar, Group Customer Sales Specialist, M/s. Eureka Forbes,(Customer Care Center) New No.560, Old No.616, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 24.10.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar

Counsel for 1 to 3 Opposite parties         :M/s.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi

                                                               (Indus Associates)

Counsel for 4^th Opposite Party                       :Ex - parte

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Complainant was approached by the 4^th Opposite Party who is a representative of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3. The Complainant booked a Aqua Guard Water Purifier “ENHANCE” model for a total cost of Rs.12,720/- on 29.08.2011. The Complainant agreedto pay the said cost of the product on 4 installments and accordingly he issued a cheque for  Rs.4,110/- dated 30.08.2011 and for a sum of Rs.2,870/- for three cheques dated 06.10.2011, 06.11.2011 and  06.12.2011. The 4^th Opposite Parties assured to deliver the product within a day. However even after lapse of 55 days the Opposite Parties did not deliver the product inspite of that the Complainant called the 4^th Opposite Party and also other Opposite Parties through phone. The Opposite Parties companies presented two cheques dated 30.08.2011 and 06.10.2011 and encashed a sum of Rs.6,980/-. On 05.10.2011 the 2^nd Complainant called one Mr.Punithan in charge of customer centre and they replied to him that the product would be delivered within 10.10.2011. However the product was not delivered to the Complainant. The practice adopted by the Opposite Parties even after encashing the cheque and not delivering the product is unfair trade practice and therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint for refund of the cheque realised amount with interest and also compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties submit that they are not manufacturer of this product. The Opposite Parties are only the marketer and service provider to the customers. Since the manufacturer of these product is not included as parties in this Complaint. Hence, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties to the instant proceedings.       The Opposite Parties submits that they are the leading marketing company of extensive products which are very much essential in daily life like water Purifiers, Vacuum Cleaners, Air Purifiers, RO Water Purifiers, UV Water Purifiers and wet and dry cleaners for  both domestic and industrial purpose. All the products introduced by the Opposite Parties are successful and accredited in the market. The Opposite Parties having goodwill and reputation among the general public for several decades and had served numerous customers with utmost satisfaction. They are the Asia’s largest Direct Sales Organization and the technicians having been trained by the company. They were also ranked among India’s Most Admired Consumer Durable companies and also got Best Employers Awards. Further, they are the Winner of the Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise “Make” – of Asisa Awards, Winner to Awards for Customer Response and Winner of Water Digest Awards. A perusal of the prayer column of the Complaint would prove that the relief claimed by the Complainant are without any basis or proof and is a vexatious claim with a view to harass the Opposite Parties. When the Complainant gave a Complaint to the customer care, immediately it was informed to the higher officials of the Opposite Parties that the machine was not delivered to the Complainant. Moreover, the said Vonoth Kumar is absconded and not reported to the company. He has not returned the Aqua Guard Water Purifier machine and not submitted the accounts to the company. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties issued an Absconding Memo to the 4^th Opposite Party and asked to report to the Opposite Parties. But, he neither returned the machine nor reported to the company. Initially, another sales officer went to their home to deliver the machine, since the Complainant’s house was locked, that was why the machine could not delivered at the first instance. The efforts taken by the 1^st Opposite Parties ended in vain because the Complainants were neither ready to receive the Aqua Guard Water Purifier machine nor the refund of money from the company. From the above fact, this Hon’ble Forum may come to a conclusion that the Complainant has not approached with clean hands and therefore the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Parties are willing to provide a new Aqua Guard Water Purifier machine are representing to refund the money paid by the Complainants hence they prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4.POINT : 1

          It is an admitted fact that the Opposite Parties 1 to 2 are marketer and service provider of the Aqua Guard Water Purifier machine and the 4^th Opposite Party  Vinoth Kumar is the agent of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and the Complainant booked a Aqua Guard Water Purifier machine with the 4^th Opposite Party on 29.08.2012 determining the cost of the product of Rs.12,720/- and  agreed to pay  the said amount in 4 installments and accordingly he issued a cheque for Rs.110/- dated 30.08.2011 and other 3 three cheques each for a sum of Rs.2,879/-  dated 06.10.2011, 06.11.2011 and 06.12.2011 and the  first and second cheques for a value of Rs.6,980/- encashed by the Opposite Parties and even after  more than two months the product was not delivered to the Complainants and hence the 2^nd  Complainant wrote Ex.A6 letter  to the bank to stop payment of remaining two cheques.

          5. The case of the Complainant is that though he 4^th Opposite Party agent promised for the delivery of the product by next day, he did not do the same and even after realizing the part amount of Rs.6,980/- on 05.09.2011 and 13.10.2011, they  did not deliver the product and even after that through Ex.A5 reminded the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 that they did not deliver the product and therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed Deficiency in Service.

          6. The 4^th Opposite Party remained Ex-parte. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 contended that the 4^th Opposite Party Vinoth Kumar absconded and he had not submitted the accounts and returned the Aqua Guard Water Purifier machine to the company and further this Opposite Party is willing to provide a new Aqua Guard Water Purifier machine or ready to refund the money paid by the Complainants and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          7. It is not in dispute that the Opposite Parties received part payment of Rs.6,980/- from the Complainant for delivery of the Aqua Guard Water Purifier machine. The product given to the 4^th Opposite Party to deliver to the Complainants and the 4^th Opposite Party had  absconded or not is not a criterion to the Complainants. The admission of the Opposite Parties in non delivering the product even after receipt of part payment and willing to refund the cost of the product clearly establishes that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency and therefore we hold that the deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 is nothing but an unfair trade practice and thereby they have committed Deficiency in Service.

 8.POINT :2        

          The Opposite Parties are willing to refund the amount of Rs.6,980/- which was realised from the Complainant. Since the Opposite Parties have not delivered the product, the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount and therefore the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 can be directed to refund the sum of Rs.6,980/- to the Complainant. The Complainant also claimed interest for the said amount and the failure on the part of the Opposite Parties to deliver the product to the Complainant is a negligent act and due to such act the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted. Therefore a sum of Rs.25,000/- can be  awarded a compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.    

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 4  jointly or severally are ordered  to refund a sum of Rs.6,980/- (Rupees six thousand nine hundred and eighty only) to the Complainant paid by him and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards the compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

          The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.     The complaint in respect of the other reliefs are dismissed.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 20^th  day of October 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 30.08.2011                   Acknowledgement for documents SI.No.682798

Ex.A2 dated 05.09.2011                   Cheque No.408865 enchased – bank statement

Ex.A3 dated 11.10.2011                   Cheque No.408866 enchased – bank statement

Ex.A4 dated 24.10.2011                   Notice by the Complainant to the 1^st,2^nd and 3^rd

                                                Opposite Party

 

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement card

Ex.A6 dated 29.10.2011                   Communication by the 2^nd Complainant to the

                                                bank manager

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1 to 3 OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                                ………NIL……..

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT