Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

132/2014

Mr.Sudharsan Balaji Devanathan,S/o.Devanathan Jamardhanan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Fitness one Group.India Ltd.,Fitness propell,Rep by its Authorized Signatory, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Thanjai P.N.Chelian

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                                           Complaint presented on:  04.07.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  19.01.2018

 

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

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 19^th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.132/2014

 

 

 

Mr.Sudarshan Balaji Devananthan,

Son of Devanathan Janardhanan,

154, 9^th Street, Chakrapani Nagar,

Maduravoyal,

Chennai – 600 095.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

M/s.Fitness One Group India Ltd.,

Fitness Propel,

Rep by its Authorised Signatory,

17, Lakshmi Street,

Kilpauk,

Chennai – 600 010.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 11.07.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. Thanjai PN Chezhiyan,

                                                                    A.Ramkumar

 

Counsel for   Opposite Party                   : M/s. Hari Radhakrishnan, G.Derrick

                                                                    Sam, G.Vijayabalan, S.A.Sayed

                                                                    Shuhaibb

 

O R D E R

 

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to refund the cost of the product of Rs.63,000/- and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a Gym Equipment namely Elliptical Cross Trainer for a consideration of Rs.63,000/- from the opposite party on 26.12.2012. After purchase of the product, it has worked in good condition for one month. During February 2013 the complainant found defects in the interior fittings and heard unusual noise from the equipment. He also experienced a shift in the left pedal that was moving in and out before he could complete one full cycle.

          2. On 25.03.2013 the complainant caused a complaint to the service executive about the left pedal and though the technician has attended the problem, the defect was not rectified. Again on 29.03.2013 he gave another complaint that the equipment is wobbling and their right side pad had come out of the wheel. The technician came and also charged Rs.550/- for rectifying the defect. The technician checked the equipment and said that the equipment had a manufacturing defect and he is helpless.

          3. Hence the complainant sent a mail on 18.01.2014 about the defect and there was no response and further sent a notice dated 26.01.2014 to resolve the issue and further through his counsel issued legal notice dated 20.04.2014 to the opposite party. However, the opposite party did not attend the problem. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to refund the cost of the product of Rs.63,000/- and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party admits that the complainant purchased Elliptical Cross Trainer Equipment by the complainant on payment of consideration. On the complaint of the complainant, this opposite party attended “Noise” problem on 11.02.2013, 25.03.2013 and 30.03.2013 and rectified the same. The complainant sent an e-mail on 29.03.2013 to the opposite party that the equipment was wobbling and his technician attended the problem on 30.03.2013 and found that there was no complaint as alleged by the complainant.

          5. The complainant raised allegations that the equipment was unstable, wobbling and  right side pad come out from the wheel is only an afterthought and the same is liable to be rejected. The complainant’s malafide intention can be proved through his mails issued   during January 2014. The warranty is valid from 26.12.2012 to 25.12.2013. The opposite party has cleared the noise problem and there is defect in the product and hence the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

7. POINT NO :1

          The admitted facts are that the opposite party is the Gym Equipment dealer and the complainant buys Elliptical Cross Trainer Equipment on 26.12.2012 under Ex.A1 bill for valuable consideration and Ex.A2 is the warranty card for the product purchased by the complainant for the period 26.12.2012 to 25.12.2013 and the said equipment was delivered under Ex.A4 delivery challan and installed on the same day at the residence of the complainant under Ex.A5.

          8. The complainant alleged deficiency in his complaint that during February 2013 he heard “Noise” in the equipment and the left pedal was moving in and out before he could complete one full cycle and on 25.03.2013 made another complaint that there was problem in the equipment further on 29.03.2013 he made another complaint that the equipment was wobbling and right side pad had come out and even though technician attended the problem the same were not rectified and therefore the opposite party committed deficiency in service.

          9. Ex.A6 dated 11.02.2013, Ex.A7 dated 25.03.2013 and Ex.A8 dated 30.03.2013 service call reports issued by the opposite party technicians for rectifying the problem. In all the three service calls the nature of complaint was “Noise”. After rectifying the same the complainant also signed in all the service calls report. As if alleged by the complainant the left pedal was moving in and out and the right pedal came from the wheel, certainly the complainant should have made endorsement in the service report that such problems were not rectified. Therefore the above documents proves that there is no defect in the left and right pedal as alleged by the complainant and only problem was “Noise” and the same was also rectified as per the service call reports. Further the complainant himself sent Ex.A9 mail dated 29.03.2013 to the opposite party that the “Noise” in the equipments is completely gone, but, it continues to be unstable. Therefore the complainant himself admits in that Ex.A9 that the “Noise” problem fully rectified. Further in Ex.A6, in the service rendered column, the technician mentioned that “Floor Mat was absent now noise is not there”. The above noting proves that without floor mat the complainant used the equipment and that is why noise and unstable of equipments have arose. Therefore, the document filed by the complainant itself proves that there was no defect in the product and the opposite party also provided service and hence we hold that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

10. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 19^th day of January 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Complete Broachers

Ex.A2 dated 26.12.2012                   Bill

Ex.A3 dated 26.12.2012                   Warrant Card

Ex.A4 dated 26.12.2012                   Delivery Challan

Ex.A5 dated 26.12.2012                   Installation Report

Ex.A6 dated 11.02.2013                   Service Call Report

Ex.A7 dated 25.03.2013                   Service Call Report

Ex.A8 dated 30.03.2013                   Service Call Report

Ex.A9 dated 29.03.2013                   E-mail Complaint

Ex.A10 dated 11.01.2014                 E-mail Complaint

Ex.A11 dated 18.01.2014                 E-mail Complaint

Ex.A12 dated 26.01.2014                 E-mail Complaint

Ex.A13 dated 20.04.2014                 Legal Notice to the opposite parties

Ex.A14 dated NIL                             Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A15 dated NIL                             Photos of Machine

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                                ….. NIL ….

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT