Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/47/2016

S.A.Ponnusamy, M/A-41 - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Revathi Home Need - Opp.Party(s)

R.Dhanasekar

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

                                                             Complaint presented on:  01.03.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  01.09.2016

 

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

 

THURSDAY THE 01^st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.47/2016

 

 

 

S.A.Ponnusamy, M/A-41,

Son of Mr.S.Arumugasamy,

No.12-D, 1^st Cross Street,

B.V.Colony, Vysarpadi,

Chennai – 600 039.

                                                                                       ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

	M/s. Revathi Home Needs, Rep.by its Proprietor, NKR Building, No.3, Madhavaram High Road, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.   2.M/s. Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Having Branch Office at No.18, 4th Lane, Off Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.         3.M/s. Onida, MIRC Electronics Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Onida House, G-1, M.I.D.C Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093.
	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  25.04.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. R.Dhanasekar

Counsel for Opposite Parties                        : Ex - parte

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY MEMBER  TMT.T.KALAIYARASI,  B.A.B.L.,       

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The 3rd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the Onida Washing Machine. The 1^st Opposite Party is the dealer of the 3^rd Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorised service provider of the 3^rd Opposite Party. The Complainant purchased a Onida Washing Machine from the 1^st Opposite Party on 26.10.2011 for a consideration of Rs.10,617/-.  While using the product, on 18.11.2015 the said product started giving trouble and gradually turned as inactive.  The Complainant made a Complaint to the 2^nd Opposite Party and a Complaint was registered on 18.11.2015. The service engineer of the 2^nd Opposite Party inspected on 26.11.2015 and advised that the PCB board is not working and it has to be changed.  Accordingly the said board was changed by him on payment of Rs.3,000/- on the same day. Though the service engineer informed that the product will function without trouble, on the same day night the product turned as dead. A Complaint was registered on 09.12.2015 with the 2^nd Opposite Party and he had not repaired the product and therefore the 3^rd Opposite Party manufactured and supplied the substandard product to the Complainant through the 1^st Opposite Party. Therefore the Complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties and even after receipt notice they did not reply. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to replace a new washing machine with compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

          2. Though the Opposite Parties received notice, they did not appear on 26.05.2016 and hence the Opposite Parties called absent and set Ex-parte.

          3. The Complainant had filed his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the Complainant.

          4. The Complainant had also filed written argument and oral argument of the Complainant is heard.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

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

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

6. POINT NO :1

          The Complainant purchased a Onida Washing Machine from the 1^st Opposite Party who is the dealer of the  Manufacturer/3^rd Opposite Party under Ex.A1  purchase bill on payment of consideration of Rs.10,617/-. The product became defective on 18.11.2015 while using the same and hence the Complainant  registered a Complaint  with the 2^nd Opposite Party/service provider on 18.11.2015 and the service engineer of the 2^nd Opposite Party attended the defect on 26.11.2015  and changed PCB board on payment of Rs.3,000/- under Ex.A2 Job sheet. After rectifying the defect, on the same day night again the product caused problem and turned as dead and hence the Complainant, complained from 26.11.2015 onwards and lastly the 2^nd Opposite Party registered a Complaint on 09.12.2015 and however he did not attend any problem.

          7. The 2^nd Opposite Party even after registering the Complaint on 09.12.2015 failed to rectify the defect and he attended the problem on 26.11.2015 and on the day night itself again the product became dead clearly establishes that the 2^nd Opposite Party has not attended the defect properly. Further, the 3^rd Opposite Party who is  the  manufacturer  and also authorized the 2^nd Opposite Party as his service provider and therefore the 3^rd Opposite Party is also liable for the defective service done by the 2^nd Opposite Party  and therefore, we hold that the Opposite Parties 2 & 3 have committed Deficiency in Service.

          8. However the 1^st Opposite Party is only a dealer and who has sold the product which was manufactured by the 3^rd Opposite Party and supplied to him and therefore we hold that the dealer/1^st Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

 9. POINT NO: 2

          The product was purchased on 26.10.2011. After 4 years only on 18.11.2015 the product became defective. The deficiency also found only in respect of service done by the 2^nd Opposite Party. There is no evidence in respect of the manufacturing defect in the product. Therefore we hold that the Complainant is not entitled for order for replacement of new washing machine.  However the 2^nd Opposite Party having received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- including the cost of the PCB board and he rectified the defect and on the same day night the product again became defective certainly caused mental agony to the Complainant is accepted. Therefore, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the other reliefs and the Complaint against the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to be dismissed.  

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 2^nd  & 3^rd  jointly or severally are ordered   to pay  a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony to the Complainant  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. The Complaint in respect of the 1^st Opposite Party and other reliefs are dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 01^st   day of September 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.10.2011                   Washing M/C Purchase Bill issued by 1^st

Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 26.11.2015                   Service Job Sheet by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A3 dated 15.02.2016                   Legal Notice

Ex.A4 dated 22.02.2016                   India Post – Article Tracking – Series

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT