Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

131/2014

Mr.A.Anandan,S/o.Mr.m.Arumugam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Shanthi Electricals,Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

R.Dhanalakshmi

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  26.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  09.01.2017

 

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

 

MONDAY THE 09^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2017

 

 

C.C.NO.131/2014

 

 

Mr.A.Anandan,

S/o.Mr.M.Arumugam,

No.21-a, 1^st  St, Mummurthi Nagar,

Chrompet, Chennai – 44.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

M/s. Shanthi Electricals,

Rep. by its Partner Mr.Parithi,                   Amended as per order dated.24.03.15

No.36, Thambu Chetty St,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 11.07.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Ms.R.Dhanalakshmi

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s.R.Ganesh Babu & C.Selvaraj

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

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

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

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          On 03.05.2014 the Complainant visited the Opposite Party shop and purchased a 5 Liter Wet –Grinder for a consideration of  Rs.12,075/-. The Opposite Party shop man explained that the motor is from Lakshmi Motors and one year warranty etc. Thus he purchased the grinder for his house hold and for his livelihood. But to his dismay and shock it was not running on the next day. The Opposite Party shop man came and delivered the grinder on 03.05.2014 and on that day he showed running. But when the Complainant used the grinder on the next day with the rice, the grinder stopped running. Immediately the Complainant informed the Opposite Party shop and they assured to send their person. The Technician came and checked the machine and informed the Complainant that the main Motor burnt. Hence he has to buy a new motor etc., and left the premises. The Complainant was shocked and disappointed. But the Opposite Party denied replacement though the product was within the one year warranty period. Hence the Complainant on 12.04.14 wrote a letter, requested the Opposite Party to give a new motor. The Opposite Party shop also replied by its letter dated 14.05.2014 stating that the Complainant did not follow the terms and conditions. The Complainant wonders that purchase of the Grinder the Opposite Party did not give any pamphlets or anything. This Complainant is not  aware of any terms and conditions. The Opposite Party shop man came home and delivered and when operated it run in empty. But when the Complainant used with contents of rice the grinder stopped. The defect motor has been sold to the Complainant herein and it amounts to Deficiency in Service. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to refund the cost of the product of Rs.12,075/- and also compensation for mental agony with cost of litigation charges.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF

          The Complainant decided to purchase for the purpose of doing the grinding and giving flour to the relatives and neighbours are nearer to his home. Thus he purchased the grinder for his household and for his livelihood, which is crystal clear that the Complainant is not a Consumer as prescribed under the Act. In other words he is doing grinding business for his livelihood. The model of 5 liters wet grinder purchased by the Complainant itself will demonstrate that it is meant for commercial purpose which has been stickered as Commercial Wet Grinder with proper statutory instructions. Under the above sole ground itself the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. At the time of attending the Complaint, the house wife of the Complainant who was also witnesses the occurrence also accepted that their house was not properly wired. In view of the improper installation the said wet grinder was affected with low voltage and sustained damage to the motor coil. Even in the Guarantee Card it was clearly mentioned that N.B. Do not use in low voltage (Below 200 Volt) in such deviation of guarantee conditions, this Opposite Party is not liable to replace the wet grinder. Furthermore there is another very important clause is that “the manufactures do not undertake any guarantee for the wet grinder and motor are opened by unauthorized persons” Wherein it is the case of the Complainant that before calling upon the Opposite Party to attend the fault, the Complainant appears to be engaged, the unauthorized electrician to attened the fault, on the date of inspection itself the said unauthorized electrician who are present and accepted the electrification fault. In view of non-following stipulated guarantee conditions this Opposite Party is not liable to replace or held liable for any fault caused due to improper handling of the equipment. That is why this Opposite Party had sent a suitable reply to the letter written by the Complainant. Therefore the Complainant is not a genuine consumer and he is not entitled for any relief as sought by him in the Complaint and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.         

3. 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?

4. POINT NO :1 

          Admittedly the Complainant purchased from the Opposite Party 5 liters of Wet Grinder with Lakshmi Motor on payment of consideration of Rs.12,075/- under Ex.A1  Cash Bill. Ex.A2 guarantee card issued by the Opposite Party for the Wet Grinder. Ex.B1 photograph shows 5 liters Wet Grinder.

          5. The Opposite Party pleaded in the written version that the Complainant purchased the grinder for the purpose of doing the grinding by way of business and   selling to his relatives and neighbours near by his house and therefore he has purchased the grinder for his house hold and for his livelihood and therefore  the Complainant doing grinding business for his livelihood and therefore on this sole ground the Complaint is liable to be dismissed as he is not a Consumer.   The Opposite Party clearly stated in his written version that the Complainant is doing business for his livelihood. As per section 2(d) in explanation clause stated that “commercial purpose” does not include used by a person that the product purchased for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Therefore, the admitted case of the Opposite Party in the written version itself that the Complainant was earning for his livelihood is not for commercial purpose and hence the Complainant is regarded as a Consumer and on this score the Complaint is not liable to be dismissed.

6.POINT NO:2

           According to the Complainant the Opposite Party shop man delivered the grinder on 03.05.2014 and on that day he showed the product running, but when the Complainant used the grinder on the next day with the rice, the grinder stopped running. Then, he wrote Ex.A3 Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 letters to the Opposite Party to attend the problem. The Opposite Party would reply that when he attended the problem the house wife of the Complainant who was present accepted that their house was not properly wired and in view of improper installation due to low voltage the motor coil was damaged.

7.  The Complainant specifically pleaded that on 03.05.2014 the Opposite Party shop man delivered the product and showed the product is running. In the very same wiring the Opposite Party shop man showed the product was running and only on the next day the grinder stopped running with rice. The Opposite Party man found that the motor coil was damaged. There is no acceptable evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party that the Complainant house is having low voltage. Therefore, it is held that due to the defect in motor only the coil was damaged.

8. The Opposite Party refused to replace the motor and they do not undertake for the wet grinder and motor or opened by unauthorized person. The Complainant specifically pleaded in his Complaint that the Opposite Party shop man only installed the wet grinder and showed running. This fact was not denied by the Opposite Party. In such circumstances, the unauthorized persons opened the wet grinder and motor is not accepted  and therefore as per Ex.A2 guarantee card the Opposite Party is liable to replace  with new  motor to the wet grinder purchased from him. Even after several letter written by the Complainant, the Opposite Party failed to replace with new motor as per Ex.A2 guarantee card, it is held that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service.

9. POINT NO :3

Since the Complainant is entitled for replacement of  new motor  as per Ex.A2 guarantee card and that the Opposite Party failed to do the same, the request of the prayer of the Complainant seeking refund of the cost of the product is justified and also for compensation for mental agony.  Hence it would be appropriate to order that the Opposite Party should refund the cost of the product of Rs.12,075/- to the Complainant and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- 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 refund a sum of Rs.12,075/- (Rupees twelve thousand  and seventy five only) towards the cost of the  product to the Complainant and simultaneously the Complainant also should handover the product to the Opposite Party and further the Opposite Party also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five 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 09^th day of January 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 03.05.2014                   Receipt issued by the Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Guarantee card issued by the Opposite Party

Ex.A3 dated 12.05.2014                   Letter issued by Complainant to Opposite Party

Ex.A4 dated 14.05.2014                   Reply by Opposite Party

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Letter by Complainant

Ex.A6 dated 30.05.2014                   Reply by Opposite Party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Photo copy

                                     

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT