BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 18^th DAY OF JUNE 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to replace the old chimney with new chimney or return the entire money paid for the said chimney along with interest, compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency of service together with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant purchased a FABER make CHIMNEY model: AURA ENERGY LTW 90 on 21.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.14,000/- from OP and the same was installed by them in the same month by their service group.  In the month of April 2015 the Chimney fixed by the OP got detached from the wall itself and fell down as it was not fixed firmly/properly, also suitable hardware were not used by OP while fixing the Chimney on the wall.  That due to this fall the body of the Chimney got damaged and hence the same needs replacement.  That the complainant informed the OP about the incident but he did not take any interest in replacing the Chimney or refund the entire amount paid.  That the OP was very careless and disrespectful towards complainant and even asked him to go away from the showroom.  Therefore, the complainant was compelled to approach the Forum for an order directing the OP to replace the damaged Chimney with new Chimney of the same model or return the entire price of the Chimney along with interest together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards legal cost.

3. The OP in response to the notice issued entered his appearance through his advocate and filed his version admitting the purchase of the said Chimney by the complainant and further contended as under:

That OP is a dealer of Franke Faber India Limited., and has issued a warranty card to the complainant as per rules.  That the warranty card clearly indicates that the product is manufactured by Faber and it is further stated that, the company will repair or replaces the parts to the full satisfaction and at sole discretion of the company.  That the company is not made as a party in this proceedings, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary party.  The OP is dealer and sells the products and not a service agent.  That the complainant has purchased the said product from OP after accepting the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty card.  As per the terms and conditions of the warranty card the responsibility of rendering after sales support of the products sold by OP is with the company and their authorized service agents.  That whenever a customer complains with regard to the malfunctioning of any product he will direct them to the authorized service centre.  That whenever there is any malfunctioning or manufacturing defect in the product the same will be resolved by the company.  The OP has never sent any service group for installation of Chimney in the house of the complainant.  That the OP is an authorized dealer to sell the products and after sales, installation and service is done by the authorized service centre and this OP is nothing to do with the after sales service of any products sold.  There is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP.  The OP is not responsible for any damage caused to the Chimney purchased by the complainant since he is not at all responsible for its installation or service etc.

For the aforesaid reasons, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.   

4. The complainant, subsequent to filing of the version, submitted his evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  The OP filed his affidavit evidence in support of the averments made in the version.  Both the parties have submitted their written arguments and certain documents to substantiate the respective contentions.

5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the version, sworn testimony of both parties, documents produced by both sides, written arguments submitted by both sides and other materials placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

8.  OP admits that the complainant purchased FABER Make CHIMNEY on 21.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.14,000/- from OP showroom.  The complainant has produced tax invoice dated 21.10.2014.  According to the complainant, after he purchased the said Chimney the service personal were sent to his home by the OP himself and they installed the Chimney at his house.  However, OP denies that he sent any personal to install the said Chimney at the house of the complainant.  According to OP, he is an authorized dealer of Chimneys and other products manufactured FABER and except selling the products he does not render any other service including installation and after sales services.

9. The OP by producing the copy of warranty card issued along with product purchased, argued that immediately after sale of Chimney, it is the authorized service centre of Franke Faber India Ltd., (FFIL) visits the house of customer and installs the Chimney and thereafter sales service is by the authorized service centre of FFIL and he is nothing to do with the after sales service.  Perused the copy of warranty card.  The complainant did not deny the issuance of warranty card by the OP along with Chimney.  The said warranty card/owner’s manual discloses that the after sale service of the product of FFIL are undertaken by the authorized service centre of FFIL.  Each product manufactured by FFIL carries various kinds of warranty such as warranty for one year and life time warranty.

10. The close perusal of the warranty/owner’s manual discloses that after sales services of the product of FFIL are carried by authorized service centers of FFIL only.  There is nothing in the said owner’s manual/warranty card indicating that the dealer of the product is in any way responsible either for installation or for any manufacturing defect occurred in the product sold.  Thus, it is absolutely clear that, it is the FFIL who alone is responsible.  Therefore, the authorized service center alone is responsible for installation as well as after sale service of the product sold by the authorized dealers.  Even when there is any manufacturing defect in the product, it is FFIL which is responsible for rectification of such defect or replacement of the product.  The dealer of the product does not come in the picture at all once he sells the product to the customer.  Therefore, the complainant is not correct in filing this complaint against the OP/dealer without making manufacturer/FFIL as party.  In fact, Franke Faber India Limited., is necessary and essential party to the present proceedings.  In the given circumstances of the case and terms and conditions of the warranty OP cannot be held responsible for damage if any caused to the Chimney purchased by the complainant.  Similarly the OP cannot be directed either to repair the damaged Chimney or to replace it or to refund the price of the Chimney to the complainant.  The OP is no where responsible for the said damage caused to the Chimney due to faulty installation by the authorized service personal of FFIL.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint filed against OP is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

11. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  However in the circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 18^th day of June 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 29.09.2015.

1. Sri.Sanjith R Varma

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 23.11.2015.

1. Sri.Sriraman.  

Document produced by the Opposite party:

MEMBER                            MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*