Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/12/2016

M/s.Gurumoorthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Global Innovatives - Opp.Party(s)

T.Natarajan

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  23.12.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.04.2017

 

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

 

FRIDAY THE 28^th DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

C.C.NO.12/2016

 

 

Mr.Gurumoorthy,

No.A4, First Floor, Sriram Apartments,

156A/212A, Choolaimedu High Road,

Choolaimedu,

Chennai – 600 094.

                                                                                        ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

M/s.Global Innovatives,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.5A, Thangam Colony,

6^th Avenue, Anna Nagar (West),

Chennai – 600 040.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 15.02.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.Natarajan.T

Counsel for Opposite Party                     : M/s.N.Easwaran , K.M.Ramesh       

 

 

 

 

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 pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of business, towards cost of wages and 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 on 07.01.2014 entered into a Contract for Annual Maintenance with the Opposite Party and the same was subsequently renewed on 21.02.2015 and a sum of Rs.1,600/- was paid by the Complainant on the renewal of the Annual Maintenance Contract. The said sum of Rs.1,600/- was paid through cheque dated 21.02.2015 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai.

          2. The Opposite Party agreed to provide the following service …

1. To solve the company’s reported UPS/Invertors Complaint, if any on a regular basis
2. Every four months, the Opposite Party shall do the maintenance for the Invertors and shall attend all the break down calls
3. Onsite 24/7 support, 8 hours response time and 24 hours resolution
4. No extra cost to be charged in case of any break down and in case if the invertors fails to work, the same will be rectified without charging any amount during the period of AMC.

3. During 14^th September 2015, around 9.00 a.m there was power break down and there was total power shut down revealing that the invertors did not function. The Opposite Party was contacted on the same day and as there was no response. On 16.09.2015 and on 18.09.2015, the Opposite Party was called to attend the fault in the Invertors. Each and every time, when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party at its office, it was informed that their executive will attend to the Complaint. Unfortunately no personnel from the Opposite Party came to check the invertors.   

          4. The Complainant had forced to shut his operations at his office on 17^th and 18^th September 2015.  The Complainant engaged the services of a third party and got the inverter back to working condition. The Complainant addressed a letter to the Opposite Party on 21.09.2015 explaining in detail, the hardship faced by him because of the total non-commitment on the side of the Opposite Party.  On 24.09.2015, a person from the Opposite Party’s office visited the Complainant’s work place and in the absence of Complainant, had informed other staff that everything is working normally. On 25.09.2015 the Opposite Party had issued a reply as if the fault was lying with the Complainant. On the other hand, the Complainant submits that when a product is covered under AMC, it is the duty of the service provider to attend the job immediately.  The Complainant issued legal notice dated 17.11.2015 and the Opposite Party issued reply dated 24.11.2015.  Thereafter the Complainant filed the Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of business, towards cost of wages and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.        

 

 

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant has purchased Mahindra 800 VA Inverter along with Exide Battery on 13.12.2012. The warranty stands on all parts (except power socket, switch and external body) of UPS for a period of 24 months from the date of sale. It is further submitted that this warranty is applicable if used within its specifications. The contract for annual maintenance with this Opposite Party was renewed on 21.02.2015 for a period of one year. It is pertinent to point out that during the renewal, it was clearly advised to the Complainant that the warranty period for the battery and inverter have been already lapsed and no warranty is covered at that time. This is recorded in the service report No.2949 dated 16.09.2015 which is filed as document No.2. On 18.09.2015 when the Complainant called over telephone and immediately their executive responded that unless the battery is changed the problem could not be rectified. It is evident from the service report filed along with this version.  In compliance to the terms and conditions stipulated in the AMC this Opposite Party strictly complied with the service request in a prompt manner within the stipulated time. Hence this Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency in service.  On 21.09.2015 the Complainant sent a letter and in response to that this Opposite Party sent a reply dated 25.09.2015 explaining the clear facts of the Complaint and the way for solution of the problem. The Complainant is trying to get a new battery alleging false wood story and this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost. 

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 

It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased Mahindra 800 VA inverter along with Exide Battery on 13.12.2012 with 2 years warranty from the Opposite Party for a valuable consideration of Rs.15,990/- under Ex-A1.  It is further admitted that the Complainant entered into Ex-A2, AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) on 7.1.2014 for the period from 7.1.2014 to 6.1.2015 on payment of charges of Rs.1,300/-and subsequently renewed Ex-A3, AMC from 21.2.2015 for a period of 1 year by paying a sum of Rs.1,600/-.

8. The Complainant contended that on 14.9.2015 there was power break down and inverter not working and on the same day the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party and there was no response and again contacted on 16.9.2015 and 18.9.2015 and even then there was no response and hence he wrote Ex-A4 letter dated 19.9.2015 to attend the problem and for that the Opposite Party gave Ex-A5 reply and thereafter Ex-A6 & A7 notices exchanged between them and even after that the Opposite Party had not rectified the problem and therefore the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service. 

9. The Opposite Party contended that one Mr. Boopathy, attended the problem on 16.9.2015 and 24.9.2015 and in Ex-A5 reply the Opposite Party specially stated that at the time of entering AMC on 21.2.2015 they have informed that the battery is in weak state and warranty of the battery is over and further on 13.7.2015 one Mr. Logesh, technician made maintenance and checked the battery status and also filed distilled water  and informed the Complainant to replace the battery as one of the battery of the cell is not working and however the Complainant has not changed the battery and therefore the inverter is not working and hence the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays the dismiss the Complaint with cost.

10. Admittedly when the inverter was break down on 14.9.2015 and on 19.9.2015 when the Complainant wrote Ex-A5 letter to attend the problem, the
Ex-A4, AMC was in force.  Therefore as per the terms of the Annual maintenance contract the Opposite Party is bound to attend the defects in the inverter.  However the Opposite Party did not reply to the calls made by the Complainant on 14.9.2015, 16.9.2015 & 18.9.2015.  Therefore failure to attend the defect in the inverter is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. 

11. The Opposite Party stated in Ex-A5 reply dated 21.9.2015, that at the time of entering AMC on 21.2.2015 he had informed that the battery is weak and warranty also over and Boopathy technician also informed on 24.9.2015 that the battery has to be replaced for the unit function properly.  At the time of renewing Ex-A3 AMC if the battery is weak why the Opposite Party entered AMC when the battery is very weak.  Further, if the battery is weak, the same has not been mentioned by the Opposite Party in the AMC and on the other hand he had simply received charges of Rs.1,600/-.  The Opposite Party filed Ex-B2, service report in respect of the Complainant inverter.  The Opposite Party also wrote in the said service report dated 16.9.2015 and 18.9.2015 that he had advised to change the battery.  However the Complainant would state that the Opposite Party has not attended the defects on the above two days and that is why his signature was not obtained in the customer column.  On perusal of series service report filed in Ex-B2, in none of the dates the customer signature has not been obtained.  This fact throws  light that the Opposite Party has never attended the defects on the above days and as contended by Complainant the service report have been concocted for the purpose of this case.  Further at the time of entering AMC the product is weak and the said fact was informed to the Complainant is also not accepted in the circumstances of the case.  The very purpose of having the inverter only to have the power supply when the electrical power supply goes off.  Therefore the Opposite Party having received consideration under maintenance contract to provide service to the Complainant product and failed to provide the same even after several times called by the Complainant is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and therefore we hold that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:2

          As the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service and consequently the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted.  The Complainant pleaded in his Complaint that he is doing business for his livelihood and in that place only the inverter was installed.  The Complainant sought relief of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of business and Rs.6,966/- towards cost of wages.  However there is no documents or evidence that the Complainant sustained loss of Rs.20,000/- in his business and incurred cost of Rs.6,966/- towards wages.  Therefore the Complainant not entitled for the amount towards loss of business and wages. 

13. The Complainant had to shut his office on 17/18.9.2015 for two days as the inverter is not working.  As the Opposite Party has not attended the defect, the Complainant engaged a third party and rectified the defect.   Since the Complainant suffered with mental agony, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten  thousand only) towards 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.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of April 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 13.12.2012                            Order cum Receipt issued by Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 07.01.2014                            Annual Maintenance Contract

Ex.A3 dated 21.02.2015                            Annual Maintenance Contract

Ex.A4 dated 19.09.2015                            Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party

Ex.A5 dated 25.09.2015                            Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant

Ex.A6 dated 17.11.2015                            Legal notice issued to Opposite Party

Ex.A7 dated 24.11.2015                            Reply from Opposite Party to Complainant’s

                                                            Counsel

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                               Annual Maintenance Contracts (Labour –

                                                          AMC)

 

Ex.B2 dated 20.12.2012                             Service Report

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                               Service Card

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT