Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/74/2020

Mr.A.Hussain mohammed - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.The Lgend Servana Stores Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

party in person

24 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

Complaint presented on  :24.10.2020 Date of disposal               :24.11.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                  TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                             : MEMBER-I

                                THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA     : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.74/2020

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 24^th   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

A.Hussain Mohamed,

99, Bharathiyar Extn Street,

Vivekananda Nagar,

Kodungaiyur,

Chennai-600 118.

                                                                                                 .. Complainant.                                                                          ..Vs..

 

1.M/s. The Legend Saravana Stores,

Rep. by its Manager,

15, MTH Road,

Padi, Chennai-600 050.

 

2.M/s.Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep.by its Manager,

Building Number 1, Okhla Industrial Estate,

Phase III, Opposite Modi Mill,

New Delhi-110 020.

 

3. DSC Chennai,

Rep.by its Manager,

The Trapezium, 1^st Floor,

39, Nelson Manickam Road,

Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029.

                                                                       ..  Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                             : R.Bhavani Priya.

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3             : Exparte.

 

 

ORDER

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,       : MEMBER-I

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to directing the Opposite parties to refund from the entire amount from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.25228/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase and date of disposal of this consumer complaint and to pay a compensation of Rs.500000/-  for mental torture, stress, pain, hardships from the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.350000/- for issue the manufacturing defective refrigeration given by the opposite parties to the complainant and to pay the filing and other miscellaneous expenses of Rs.50000/- and cost of this compliant.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he purchased a haier refrigerator Model No. HRF-2984PFG-E from the 1^st opposite party for the amount of Rs.25228/- on 27.02.2020 and the manufacturer is 2^nd opposite party and the said refrigerator was delivered on 28.02.2020 with warranty of 12 months of comprehensive period and 108 months for compressor only by extended period. The complainant stated that within ten days from the date of purchase the refrigerator had some defects like electric shock, so much of coolness in top of the refrigerator compartment and (The freezer ) lack of deforest system which made freezer to got more and more coolness and does not coolness bottom of the refrigerator compartment.  The complainant cannot reduce the temperature control button. The complainant have lodged the complainant  with the opposite party. Further the complainant called Haier Customer care, they had sent service engineer done something yet fridge does not works over three times the opposite parties service engineer came because the complainant refrigerator consumer over 200 units for 60 days which states that their advertisement and pamphlet itself which says its fake advertisement given. The service engineer service the refrigerator he said that there is manufacturing defects in the refrigerator or refund from the complainant to the opposite parties. The opposite parties service engineer came eight times to repair till now the issue cannot be resolved. The complainant submitted that due to the corona pandemic that too without refrigerator the complainant suffered. The complainant sent a notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on 17.09.2020 and 19.09.2020 but no reply to the complainant. The 3^rd opposite party did not service properly. The opposite parties committed deficiency of service unfair trade practice to the complainant.  Hence the complainant asked the refund of Rs.25228/- with compensation.

2. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant has filed written argument, proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked on their side.The opposite parties were remained set ex-parte.

3. Point No.1:-

As per complaint, the complainant purchased Haier refrigerator at a cost of Rs. 25,228/- from 1st opposite party who is the dealer of 2nd opposite party. Within a month of purchase the refrigerator showed malfunctioning, the refrigerator extremely cooled only on the top part and the lower part was left uncooled which resulted in the spoiling of groceries kept in the lower part of the refrigerator, the complainant even tried to change the temperature . The refrigerator being under a 12 month comprehensive warranty and 108 months compressor warranty, the complainant tried lodging complaint with the 2nd Opposite party customer care which went in vain. After much struggle the complainant tried conveying the problem with the 1st opposite party who in turn lodged a complaint with 2nd Opposite party. After several complaints with the 2nd Opposite party customer care, three service personnel turned up in succession as the refrigerator consumed over 200 units in 60 days. Even after  service engineers visit  for eight times the refrigerator could not be restored to normal functioning, and the complainant's complaint was closed without his knowledge and even after several mails to the 2nd opposite party regarding refund of the purchase cost all mails were evaded intentionally, as the refrigerator is lying idle with the complaint in an unused condition the complainant prays for a refund and compensation for selling defective good and the several improper services done by the 3rd opposite party.

4.  As per Ex.A1 the complainant purchased a brand new Haier refrigerator from 2nd opposite party at a cost of Rs. 25,228/- vide Invoice no. PA/1920/8724035 dated 27/02/2020 which was delivered on 28/02/2020. As per Ex.A3 the complainant sent several email communications to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and the reply email sent by the opposite parties in which the complainant stated that the refrigerator started to malfunction providing no chillness to the lower part of where as the upper part got overfrozen which couldn't be changed or controlled using the controls provided for the cause. On the event of service personnel inspection the stabilizer was found faulty and so connected the refrigerator directly to the main line which also proved futile. Though the service engineer took 3 days to work nothing turned up in favour  of complainant and subsequently a complaint was lodged with toll free number customer care which was followed by another service engineer inspection who declared that the fridge was frozen from inside and did some service which was also a failure. Finally calling on another time for toll free number they reported that the already a service engineer who visited had remarked as the complaint was solved and hence the complaint was closed while the service engineer requested to shift the refrigerator to workshop the complainant denied for the same and the complainant requested for refund of the cost spent on the purchase of the said refrigerator as there was no point in holding a refrigerator that doesn't work. The complainant's mail regarding the same refrigerator on 17/05/2020 shows that the 2nd opposite party's had failed to send service technician for service of the refrigerator against promise as the 2nd opposite party has not denied the same in the subsequent reply mail. It is found from the documents filed by the complainant that inspite of sending several emails to the customer care of the 2^nd opposite party though the service engineers attempted to repair and rectify the defects and even thereafter the refrigerator was not functioning properly and it is found that due to non cooling effect of the refrigerator the complainant and their family members suffered during pandemic period. Though legal notice was issued to opposite parties 1 and 2 there was no reply.  The continuous non working of the refrigerator after a month the date of purchase till now and the service team of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party were not able to solve the problem and rectify the defects will go to show that there is inherent defect in manufacturing the product due to which the problem was not able to be rectified by the service team. Under such circumstances and facts of the case the expert opinion regarding manufacturing defect is not necessary.  It is found from the email communication that the complainant is not willing for replacement the product as he was not satisfied with the 2^nd opposite party company product and therefore insisted upon only refund of the refrigerator amount.  The act of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in selling the defective refrigerator to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and similarly since the 3^rd opposite party service persons were not able to rectify the defect in the refrigerator it is also liable for deficiency for service.  Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

5. POINT NO.2

 Based on the findings given in Point No.1 the opposite parties 1 to 3 having committed the act of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service are jointly and severally liable to refund the refrigerator cost of Rs.25228/- to the complainant and since the complainant suffered hardship and mental agony for several months due to non functioning the refrigerator and the complainant also entitled to get compensation for mental agony  a sum of Rs.20000/- and also entitled for Rs. 5000/- towards cost of complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25228/- being the cost of refrigerator to the complainant on taking return of the disputed product from the complainant by the 1^st opposite party and the opposite parties 1 to 3  are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant and also pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of this complaint. The return of the product and payment of the cost of the product and compensation amount along with cost has to be done within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment. 

          Dictated  by the Member I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 24^th day of November  2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                MEMBER – II                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	27.02.2020	Invoice from the opposite party.
Ex.A2		Warranty card from the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A3	21.03.2020 to 31.05.2020	Email communications between the complainant and the opposite parties.
Ex.A4	22.05.2020	Complainant raised the complaint to National Consumer online complaint.
Ex.A5	17.09.2020	Notice sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party with acknowledgement.
Ex.A6	19.09.2020	Notice sent by the complainant to the 2nd  opposite party with acknowledgement.
Ex.A7		Photo images.

 

 

MEMBER I                            MEMBER II                       PRESIDENT