Date of filing: 22.07.2019
Date of disposal : 27.03.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L., ....MEMBER-II
RBT/CC. No.119/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF MARCH 2023
(CC.No.115/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)
G.B.Shiva Bharathy,
S/o.Mr.G.Balasubramanian,
No.5, Assudhinkhan Street,
Triplicane, Chennai 600 005. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
M/s.Girias,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
No.18, Harbour Square,
New Harihanth Mall,
Cemetry Road, Chennai 600 021. .......Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.M.A.Prashanth Kumaran, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : M/s.G.Vivekanand, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.115/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.119/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 15.03.2023 in the presence of M/s.M.A.Prashanth Kumaran counsel for the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences of complainant, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.MURUGAN, MEMBER-II
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- towards damage of fruits, vegetables, medicines and groceries and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for making false promises and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the complaint.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The Complainant states that on seeing the advertisement published in one issue of “Dhina Thanthi” and “Times of India” he has visited the Opposite party showroom situated at the said address on 05.11.2018 at around 12 noon to buy a Refrigerator under the scheme published thereon. The Manager of the showroom has suggested to buy a Samsung Refrigerator model No. RT 30N3753SL initially but later suggested to buy Samsung Refrigerator bearing Model No.RT37M5538SL for the reason that the said Samsung Model No. RT 30N3753SL holds 270 Litres and this Samsung refrigerator model No.RT37M5538Sl holds 370 litres and the rate difference also only Rs.2500/- when compare to the said two Refrigerator. Also the Manager has informed that Samsung Model No.RT37M5538SL having a special offer of 10% cash back with No Cost EMI. It is stated by the Complainant that the prize of the said Refrigerator would be around Rs.35000/- inclusive of 10% cash back offer and 0% interest for EMI apart from the free Diwali gift. In the meanwhile, the Manager of the Opposite Party has disclosed to the Complainant that by mistake she has given the description, cost and offer for the Samsung Refrigerator Model No.RT 34M551858 (321 Litres capacity) instead of Samsung Refrigerator Model No.RT37M5538SL (310 Litres capacity). The Complainant states that there is no display of the Model selected by him (321 litres capacity) but due the domestic need of the same he has decided to purchase the Model No. RT34M551858 under the exchange offer of old Refrigerator for Rs.2000/- and the final prize at Rs.28,880/- fixed by Manager of Opposite Party. The Complainant states that while processing the payment through SBI Card, the Manager of Opposite Party has stated that SBI Card does not have the option for 10% Cash back special festival offer and 0% interest free scheme. Therefore, the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.8640/- towards initial payment along with processing fees and purchased the Samsung Refrigerator Model No. RT 34M551858 on 05.11.2018 under EMI scheme of Rs.1440/- for 14 months. The Refrigerator would be delivered on the same day by the opposite party and an amount of Rs.400/- paid as delivery charges. The Branch Manger of Opposite Party who has promised a Diwali gift on the day of purchase of Refrigerator has not delivered any gift either on the day of purchase or on the day of belated delivery of the Refrigerator as per Complainant. The contention of the Complainant that he has purchased the product on 05.11.2018 which was delivered on 08.11.2018 and the product was demonstrated as on 11.11.2018 which is far from the promise of same day delivery and demo. This delivery and demo of the product is also after continuous efforts /calls by Complainant. It is alleged that the Complainant was not given the original bill even after issuing the Legal notice dated 14.01.2019 but only a Xerox copy of the bill given. The Opposite Party has not replied either to the legal notice. The Complainant put forth that the Opposite Party’s bunch of fake promises and deficiency in service caused mental agony and also damages to the food items, fruit and medicines and faced inconvenience for a week and hardship without Refrigerator at his home and claimed to pay Rs.1500/- towards damage of fruits, Vegetables, Medicines and Groceries and Rs.25,000/- for making false promises and Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and mental torture and Cost.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
On the other hand the Opposite Party has vehemently denies all the charges made by the Complainant and pleads that the factual position are required to be established by a documentary or oral evidence. The complaint filed by the Complainant has to be addressed only in appropriate competent civil court as per Opposite party. It is submitted in their version the Opposite Party has stated that the demonstration of the product in done by the manufacturer of the product and they are not liable to be the exercise. The Opposite Party denies the change, that the Samsung model No.RT30N3753SL having capacity of 270 litres was not available in their showroom. The details of 0% interest on EMI was well informed by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and non availability of balance in card held by the Complainant made clear on this transition. As a welfare measure the Opposite Party has guided the Complainant on the private finance which the Complainant has agreed upon. The Opposite Party has submitted that the Branch Managers are well aware of the products displayed and the prize of it. The offers of Cash back on cards are between the customer and bank, and Opposite Party does not have any role. The Opposite Party further states that they have not offered any Diwali gift to the Complainant. The contention of deficiency in service made by the Complainant is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A3. Though the opposite party filed written version they did not file any proof affidavit and written arguments on their side and hence their side proof affidavit and written arguments were closed.
Points for consideration:
Whether the opposite party had committed deficiency in service has alleged by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1;-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Bill No. FS/WPT/4729 purchased by the complainant dated 05.11.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 14.01.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;
Aadhaar card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A3;
Point No.1 &2:-
The version of the Complainant and Opposite Party has been perused. The Complainant has agreed for the price and model of the Refrigerator while buying from Opposite Parties place of business. There is no dispute on the product or its performance.
The delay in delivery and demonstration of the product lies between the dealer and manufacturer of the product. Though the dealer of the product has been made Opposite Party, the manufacturer was not included as Opposite Party. The role of manufacturer is more important in delivery and demo. The role of dealer in supply is based on the manufacturer’s supply chain. Hence, the dealer has communicated the supply chain to the Complainant and therefore the delay of supply and its aftermath damage is not countable. Therefore, the damage as claimed by Complainant in respect of the Vegetable, Groceries, Medicines for non availability of Refrigerator not maintainable.
As there is no material evidence produced by the Complainant on the Diwali gift offer by the Opposite Party, does not hold good and liable to be brushed off. In short, the petition does not hold good to claim damages, Compensation.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the Member II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of March 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 05.11.2018 Bill No.FS/WPT/4729 purchased by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A2 14.01.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A3 ............... Aadhaar card of complainant. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
