Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

53/2010

Ravichandran - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.Sridhar, - Opp.Party(s)

Ratio Legis

21 Aug 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 04.02.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 21.08.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 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

 

C.C. No.53/2010

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018

                                 

Ravichandran,

Flat No.T1, Elite Square,

No.3, Abusali Street, MP Avenue,

Saligramam,

Chennai – 600 093.                                                       Complainant.                                                  

 

       Versus

 

N. Sridhar,

Proprietor,

M/s. Aqua Tec Enterprises,

No.42, Palayakaran Street,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                      Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. RATIO LEGIS

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. V.S. Sivanu Pandian

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to replace the water purifier with a brand new one, to pay a sum of Rs.5,350/- paid towards repairing charges and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he purchased a Aqua Guard (Water purifier) directly from the Eureka Forbes Company.  The opposite party was working in one of the franchise for attending service of such equipments attached to Eureka Forbes.  The complainant further submits that after one year of purchase, none of the persons from the opposite party visited and attended any service.   The complainant had faced some problems with the water purifier and called the Eureka Forbes customer care for due service.  While so, the opposite party service person attached to the Eureka Forbes, attended the fault and claimed a sum of Rs.3,450/- towards replacement of spare parts and service.   Thereafter within two months, the same problems raised in the Aqua Guard water purifier.  The complainant called the opposite party for rectifying the same.  After numerous calls on 20.11.2009, the opposite party attended the fault and claimed a sum of Rs.1,750  again for replacement of the same spare parts.  Since the Aqua Guard Water purifier is not functioning properly, the complainant called Eureka Forbes for due rectification of defects in the water purifier.  Further the complainant submits that thereafter, the opposite party came forward for exchange of Aqua Guard water purifier.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:21.12.2009, but no response from the opposite party.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the opposite party was working in one of the Franchise of the Eureka Forbes. In an accidental meeting with the complainant and on discussion, the opposite party informed the Franchise on service of Eureka Forbes which has been wind up and the opposite party started a company in the name of M/s. Aqua Tech Enterprises.  On the request of the complainant, on 17.09.2009, this opposite party attended the fault of the machine after due change of spare parts and for such service this opposite party charged Rs.3,450/- and checked the machine found it in a good condition.  After two months, again the complainant called the opposite party stating that there is some problem.   The opposite party attended the fault on 20.11.2009 and came to know that one of the spare parts which has been replaced earlier has been damaged and was replaced on payment of Rs.1,700/- towards service charges and cost of spare parts.  After 10 days, the complainant again contacted the opposite party and asked him to rectify the complaint and proposed to sell the machine etc.  Further the opposite party states that the spare parts which was replaced was purchased by the mechanic from the shop and replaced.  Further the opposite party states that the machine was duly serviced by the Eureka Forbes directly and the  Aqua Guard water purifier is functioning properly.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:

1. Whether the complainant entitled for the replacement of the water purifier with a brand new one as prayed for?
2. Whether  the complainant entitled  to a sum of Rs.5,350/- paid towards repairing charges and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased an Aqua Guard(Water purifier) directly from the Eureka Forbes Company.  The opposite party was working  in one of the franchise for attending service of such equipments attached to Eureka Forbes.  The complainant pleaded and contended that after one year of purchase, none of the persons from the opposite party visited and attended any service.   The complainant had faced some problems with the water purifier and called the Eureka Forbes customer care for due service.  While so, the opposite party service person attached to the Eureka Forbes, attended the fault and claimed a sum of Rs.3,450/- towards replacement of spare parts and service as per Ex.A1.   Thereafter within two months, the same problems raised in the Aqua Guard water purifier.  The complainant called the opposite party for rectifying the same.  After numerous calls on 20.11.2009, the opposite party attended the fault and claimed a sum of Rs.1,750/- again for replacement of the same spare parts as per Ex.A2.  Since the Aqua Guard Water purifier is not functioning properly, the complainant called Eureka Forbes for due rectification of defects in the water purifier.  The Eureka Forbes persons rectified the defects and stated that the spare parts supplied by the opposite party are of duplicate proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Further the contention of the complainant is that thereafter, the opposite party came forward for exchange of Aqua Guard water purifier.  All activities of the opposite party caused great mental agony to the complainant.   Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:21.12.2009 but no response from the opposite party.  Hence, the complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and return of the amount of 5,350/- with replacement of new Aqua Guard water purifier.

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party was working in one of the Franchise of the Eureka Forbes.  In an accidental meeting with the complainant and on discussion, this opposite party informed the Franchise on service of Eureka Forbes which has been wind up and the opposite party started a company in the name of M/s. Aqua Tech Enterprises.  On the request of the complainant, on 17.09.2009, this opposite party attended the fault of the machine after due change of spare parts and for such service this opposite party charged Rs.3,450/- and checked the machine found in good condition.  After two months, again the complainant called the opposite party stating that there is some problem.   The opposite party attended the fault on 20.11.2009 and came to know that one of the spare parts which has been replaced earlier has been damaged and was replaced on payment of Rs.1,700/- towards service charges and cost of spare parts.  After 10 days, the complainant again contacted the opposite party and asked him to rectify the complaint and proposed to sell the machine etc. 

7.     Further the contention of the opposite party is that the spare parts which was replaced was purchased by the mechanic from the shop proves that the opposite party is only a serviceman and not the manufacturer of such spare parts.  There is no promise made by the opposite party that the replaced spare parts has guaranty or warranty and there is no manufacturing defect.  Hence the claim of replacement for a new machine never arise.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the machine was duly serviced by the Eureka Forbes directly is not proved by the complainant and there is no iota of evidence in this case also.  The allegation of duplicate spare parts has been used by the opposite party is not proved.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.    No costs. 

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of August 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex A1	19.09.2009	Copy of Invoice cum receipt
Ex A2	20.11.2009	Copy of invoice cum receipt
Ex.A3	21.12.2009	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex B1	12.01.2010	Copy of reply of the opposite party to the complainant’s Counsel
Ex B2	22.01.2010	Original Acknowledgement card for the receipt of the reply

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT