Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

cc/59/2006

R. Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Microcel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

V. Balaji

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  02.01.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :  14.09.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.59/2006

THURSDAY THIS 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

 

R. Ramesh,

180, Kalappan Street,

Kattoor,

Coimbatore – 9.                                                 .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

M/s. Microcel Limited,

Vairams Complex, 3^rd Floor,

112, Thyagaraya Road,

T.Nagar,

Chennai – 17.                                                  .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Complainant          :    M/s. V. Balaji & others.   

Counsel for opposite party       :    M/s. J.G.Kannan & another     

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to replace the two Microcel Mini 3D Theatre 1000 St or to refund the sum of Rs.1,46,020/- and to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards damages and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

 

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submits that  he purchased Two Microcel Mini 3D Theatre 1000 (ST) for total cost of Rs.73,010/- for his livelihood.   The opposite party delivered the said two Microcel Mini 3D Theatre  on 31.8.2005 and issued warranty card for one year.   The complainant also state that within one week from the date of supply the machine is not functioning properly, such defects were related to soft ware problem.    Hence the complainant contacted the opposite party through phone i.e.  one Mr. Sathish and Rajesh who attended the phone calls and assured that they will look after the defects and rectify the same.   The opposite party sent service Engineer to rectify the defects who informed the complainant that there is an Audio problem and it cannot be rectified.    As such the act of the opposite party clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

        The opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite party submit that the complainant purchased two  Microcel Mini 3D Theatre  on 31.8.2005 and issued warranty card for one year.    The opposite party also state that in fact the complainant after one month from purchasing their products has approached them and requested them to take back the products as he is not in a position to use the products for which it was purchased.    The opposite party also state  that  this is not a defect and hence the complainant’s request was fulfilled on the same day and he had taken back both the products with full satisfaction on the same day.   The opposite party submit that  even at the time of sale the complainant himself had taken delivery of the products from the place of the opposite party and they made it very clear that they do not attend any service at the customer’s place and requested them to bring it to their place for any kind of service.    However instead of  approaching the opposite party to rectify the alleged defect, in the mean time the complainant has rushed to this Forum with ulterior motive.   Further the opposite party state that their product are genuine products and there is no defect whatsoever as alleged in the complaint.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party not filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite party.  

5.   The point for the consideration is:  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,46,020/- towards cost of the Microcel Mini 3D Theatre 1000 ST  as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards damages and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

6.      POINTS 1 & 2: -

          The learned counsel for the complainant contended that admittedly the complainant purchased Two Microcel Mini 3D Theatre 1000 (ST) for total cost of Rs.73,010/- for his livelihood.   The opposite party delivered the said two Microcel Mini 3D Theatre  on 31.8.2005 and issued warranty card for one year.   Within one week from the date of supply the machine is not functioning properly, such defects were related to soft ware problem started.    Hence the complainant contacted the opposite party through phone one Mr. Sathish and Rajesh  who attended the phone calls and assured that they will look after the defects and rectify the same.   The opposite party sent service Engineer to rectify the defects who informed the complainant that there is an Audio problem and it cannot be rectified which amounts to  mechanical defects and  deficiency of service of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice.  

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly the complainant purchased two  Microcel Mini 3D Theatre  on 31.8.2005 and issued warranty card for one year.    The opposite party also contended that in fact the complainant after one month from purchasing their products has approached them and requested them to take back the products as he is not  in a position to use the products for which it was purchased.    The contention of the opposite party is that  this is not a defect and hence the complainant’s request was fulfilled on the same day and he had taken back both the products with full satisfaction on the same day.   The opposite party contended that  even at the time of sale the complainant himself had taken delivery of the products from the place of the opposite party and they made it very clear that they do not attend any service at the customer’s place and requested them to bring it to their place for any kind of service.    However instead of  approaching the opposite party to rectify the alleged defect, in the mean time the complainant has rushed to this Forum with ulterior motive.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that their product are genuine products and there is no defect whatsoever as alleged in the complaint.   But it is seen from the records that the system is not functioning properly and there is a defect in Audio and video.  The Service Engineer also not rectified the system.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that  the opposite party shall rectify the defects in the two Microcel Mini 3D Theatre 1000 ST within one month from the date of this order  i.e. 14.9.2017 failing which the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,46,020/-  and also shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.The opposite party shall rectify the defects in the two Microcel Mini 3D Theatre 1000 STwithin one month from the date of this order i.e. 14.9.2017 failing which the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,46,020/- (Rupees one lakh forty six thousand and twenty only) and also shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.  

 

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  14^th    day  of  September  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 31.8.2005  - Copy of Invoice.

Ex.A2- 31.8.2005  - Copy of Delivery Chellan.

Ex.A3- 31.8.2005  - Copy of Warranty letter.

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of Invoice.

Ex.A5- 31.8.2005  - Copy of Delivery challan.

Ex.A6- 31.8.2005  - Copy of Warranty.

Ex.A7- 28.11.2005         - Copy of legal  notice.

Ex.A8- 5.12.2005  - Copy of reply notice.

Opposite party’s side document: -    .. Nil..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.