Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/403/2014

M/s.P.Arikanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Eureka Forbos Lit. Rep its by Sale Manager. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.J.Vasu

15 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed: 23.07.2014

Date of Reservation     :  19.05.2022

Date of Order              :  15.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:  TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                             : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,             :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,       : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.403 OF 2014

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^thDAY OF JUNE 2022

P.Arikaran,

S/o. Ponnusamy,

Professor and HOD Mechanical Engineering,

MMM Jain engineering,

I, F-3, Second Cross Street,

Gangai Nagar, Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.                                                      …Complainant

 

-Vs-

1.Eureka Forbes Limited,

   Rep. by its Sales Manager,

   12^th Cross Street,

   Dhandeeswaran Nagar,

   Velachery, Chennai – 600 042.

 

2.M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited,

   Head Office, Rep. by its Director,

   B1/B2, 702, Marathlon Nextgen,

   Inova, Off, Ganepatrao Kedam Marg,

   Lower Parel,

   Mumbai – 400 013.                                                   …Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant             : M/s. J. Vasu

Counsel for the Opposite Parties        : M/s. K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay the cost of the damaged Aqua guard classic purifier amounting to Rs.7790/- with 16% interest, to pay Rs.1,40,000/- for the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, to pay Rs.45,000/- for the mental agony caused to the Complaint along with cost of Rs.8,000/-.

2.     The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The case of the Complainant is that he booked one Aqua guard classic model with the 1^st Opposite Party at the Chennai Trade Centre in November 2012 and paid a sum of Rs.500/- as advance. The Complainant had paid the entire sale price of Rs.7,790/- by way of cheque to the Opposite Party, even after receipt of payment the Opposite parties neither delivered the product nor communicated to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant registered the complaint and requested to take action for his grievance through his complaints dated 19.11,2012, 5.12.2012 and 27.12.2012. Finally, one Sales Manager visited the Complainant’s residence and took a fresh order and the instrument was supplied and promised to install the instrument within 7 days.  However, the said Aqua Guard did not work properly. The Complainant gave repeated complaints on 18.01.2013, 23.01.2013, 28.01.2013, 07.02.2013, 01.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 but of no avail.  Finally the Complainant sent a legal notice on 21.12.2013, which was received by the 2^nd Opposite Party and notice to 1^st Opposite Party was returned as “Left”. The 1^st Opposite Party received the cost of Rs.7790/- for delivering the Aqua Guard instrument but did not deliver the instrument and after complaints finally delivered the instrument which did not work satisfactorily. Inspite of notice dated 21.12.2013 the Opposite Parties did not respond which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence the Complaint.

3.    Written Version of the Opposite Party in brief are as follows:-

        The Opposite Parties are not manufacturer of the product and is only a marketer and service provider to the consumers. Since the manufacturer is not included as party in the complaint, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceeding.  The Complainant demanded that he needs Aqua Guard Classic Model. The Opposite Party went to his home to install the machine many time, since the Complainant’s house was locked they could not install in time. The Aqua Guard machine was delivered after 2 weeks, but the Complainant was very adamant that he will not allow the plumber of Opposite Parties to install the machine stating the delay in installation. Later, he told the plumber of Opposite Parties to refund the amount for which the plumber replied that if he really wants to return the machine he will speak to his superior and get the amount refunded. Later the Complainant complained that the length of this pipe is extended. The length of the pipe is extended for fixing the additional diverter valve added to the existing pipe in their house for proper functioning of the machine. Thereafter the Complainant removed the diverter valve fixed without informing the Opposite Parties. And insisted to provide with the RO purifier without willing to pay the difference amount. On receiving the legal notice the service person and Deputy Divisional Sales Manager had personally visited the Complainant’s house to settle the issue amicably but the Complainant was not willing to settle the issue. The Complainant was sending emails to the Opposite Parties as if the machine was not installed but in his legal notice accepted that the machine was installed.  There are so many contradictions. When the Complainant was not agreeable for the paying of the difference amount for new RO, the service person tried to convince him for refund but the Complainant refused.  The Opposite Parties convinced to pay the difference amount for the machine he needed. But he was adamant that he was not allowing the Opposite Party to service and was not willing to pay the difference amount and also refused to accept the refund of amount. The Opposite Parties were ready to fulfil his wish by refunding, but again, he was not agreeable for paying the difference amount. The Complainant was willing to unduly enrich himself by getting advance machine without paying the difference amount. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties and therefore the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.     The Complainant has filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments.Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 were marked on the side of Complainant. The Opposite Parties has filed Written Version, Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. No document was marked on the side of Opposite Parties.

5.      Points for Consideration:-

1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2.Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

6.      Point No.1 :-

Admittedly, the Complainant had booked Aqua Guard Classic Model in November 2012 and the Complainant had paid the entire sale price of Rs.7,790/- to the 1^st Opposite Party. The product was not delivered as agreed, only after regular follow ups the same was delivered .However, the said Aqua Guard did not work properly. The Complainant had given repeated complaints from 18.01.2013 to 09.04.2013. The contention of the Opposite Party is that though the Opposite personnel went to the Complainant’s home to install the machine many times since the Complainant’s house was locked, the Opposite Party  could not install in time, as the Complainant was not cooperating for the installation with ulterior motive, but no documentary evidence has been filed in support of the above contention made.

It was contended by the Opposite Parties that the Plumber was not allowed by the Complainant to install the machine and insisted to take back the machine and to refund the amount for the machine. Thereafter the Sales person and Divisional Sales Manager of the Opposite Parties personally visited the Complainant to settle the issue amicably but the Complainant was stubborn and not willing to co-operate  to settle the issue and refused to accept the refund of amount, the above said contentions are not supported by any documentary evidence. 

Admittedly, the Opposite Parties received the emails  dated 15.02.2013, 18.07.2013 sent by the Complainant requesting the Opposite Party to take back the instrument and to refund the amount  and the contentions of the Opposite Parties that the Sales person and Divisional Sales Manager of the Opposite Parties personally to settle the issue amicably but the Complainant was stubborn and not willing to co-operate  to settle the issue and refused to accept the refund of amount is not at all acceptable as the same is not supported by any documentary evidence and further nothing prevented the Opposite Party from giving reply to the communications of the Complainant  when the grievances of the Complainant has been put in writing.

Thereafter the Complainant had issued legal notice Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-7 to the Opposite Parties,  in spite of receipt of the said letters of the complainant the Opposite party has not taken any concrete steps to resolve the issue of the Complainant and hence the contentions of the Opposite party is not at all acceptable except to hold that the Opposite Parties has committed gross negligence in installing the machine delivered to the complainant.

Hence we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party has failed to keep up their promises and assurances in installing the Aqua Guard machine of the Complainant which clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party.

7.      Point No.2:-

        On discussion made to Point No.1, the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.7,790/- paid by the Complainant as per Ex.A-2  for purchase of ‘Aqua Guard’ Classic Model together with interest @6% p.a from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e 23.07.2014  till the date of this order and entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and hardship suffered by the Complainant and also entitled for Rs.3,000/- towards cost.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. Hence, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are directed to refund the sum of Rs.7,790/-(Rupees  Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Only) to the Complainant together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e 23.07.2014 till the date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) towards mental agony suffered on the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards cost of this complaint, within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.

        In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 15^th day of June 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                           MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	03.11.2012	Statement of account showing amount of Rs.500/- paid to the 1st Opposite Party.
Ex.A2	04.01.2013	Statement of account showing amount of Rs.7290/- paid to the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A3	15.02.2013	E-mail sent to customer care, Eureka Forbes Ltd and other persons by the complainant.
Ex.A4	18.07.2013	e-mail sent to customer care, Eureka Forbes and other representatives in various dates.
Ex.A5	21.12.2013	Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2
Ex.A6	-	Acknowledgement card received by second Opposite Party
Ex.A7	09.01.2014	Legal Notice Returned with acknowledgement card endorsed as left from first Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                           MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT