Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/56/2017

M.G. Muppanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raghavendra Musci Center - Opp.Party(s)

N.G. Krishnamurthy

26 Dec 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:06.06.2017

DISPOSED      ON:26.12.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 56/2017

 

DATED:  28^th DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	M.G. Muppanna, S/o M.K. Muppanna, Age: 68 Years, Advocate, 1st Cross, JCR Extension, Tumkur     (Rep by Sri.N.G. Krishnamurthy, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Raghavendra Music Center, Vasavi Mahal Road, Chitradurga.   2. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A-Wing, 3rd Floor, D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi – 110017.   (Rep by Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri. Dheerendra Prasad, Advocate for OP No.2)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.44,500/- towards the cost of the refrigerator, damages, mental agony and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, OP No.1 is carrying business dealing in domestic LG refrigerator and OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the same.  The complainant has purchased one LG refrigerator from OP No.1 on 30.10.2016 vide cash Bill No.2657.  The said LG refrigerator has been guaranteed for trouble free service for a period of 2 years from the date of purchase vide guarantee card issued by the OP No.1.  After two months from the date of purchase, the LG refrigerator found defective in working and it was not working properly and there is a defect in cooling and it was not at all cooling properly.  The complainant has informed the same to the OP No.1, the OP No.1 has sent one Shivakumar, Technician who tried to repair the same, but it was not repaired.  Then OP No.1 deputed two more persons to make repair for 4-6 times and some defective parts were replaced.  In spite of that, it was not working and told that, there is a cooling defect which is a manufacturing defect and the same cannot be repaired.  ON the basis of technician report, the OP No.1 has taken back the LG refrigerator on 28.03.2017 with an assurance that he will replace the same without any delay.  It is further submitted that the complainant has visited so many times to the OP No.1 but, the OP No.1 did not replace the LG refrigerator.  The OP No.1 keeping the refrigerator and also an amount of Rs.26,500/-.  The complainant has issued a legal notice to the OPs on 04.04.2017 calling upon them to pay a sum of
Rs.26,500/- with damages of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the proceedings of Rs.5,000/-.  The notice sent by the complainant was duly served, the OPs have given untenable reply to the same.  The OPs are miserably failed to discharge their obligations in terms of guarantee given to the complainant at the time of purchase of the said LG refrigerator.  The defects found in the said refrigerator is as a result of poor workmanship of the manufacturer for which the complainant has suffered loss and damages.  The OPs are giving assurance for the warranty period of two years from the date of purchase.  The OPs have acted in a negligent manner while dealing with the complaint.  The complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony and damages.  The OPs are liable for breach of contract as they have not complied with the terms of the guarantee and they have acted extremely negligent on their part.  The complainant has not been able to use the refrigerator for more than four months and he has been under great mental pressure all through particularly because of the extremely negligent on the part of OPs.  Hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After issuance of notice to the OPs, one Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and filed version. Sri. Dheerendra Prasad, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and filed version. 

According to OP No.1, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complaint is barred by limitation.  The allegations made in the complaint are denied as false and according to the OP No.1, the OP No.1 is a dealer, he sold the articles on the basis of commission.  The OP No.1 is doing the business and working for principal to principal basis but, it is true that, the complainant has purchased one refrigerator from it.  After purchasing the said refrigerator, the complainant has informed the OP No.1 that, there is some cooling defects in the refrigerator and again OP No.1 has deputed two more persons to repair the same.  It is only a manufacturing defects and OP No.1 is only a seller received from the manufacturer.  But, in this case, the OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service.  OP No.2 is the manufacturer.  There is a complaint asking remedy against the OP No.2 only, not against the OP No.1, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

OP No.2 admits that, the complainant has purchased LG refrigerator from OP No.1.  OP No.1 is an appointed person by the OP No.2 to sell the articles manufactured by it.  OP No.2 further admits that, the warranty for LG refrigerator is for two years from the date of purchase.  After purchasing of the LG refrigerator, some defects arisen in the refrigerator.  The complainant informed about the same to OP No.1. OP No.1 send one Shivakumar, Technician for its repair.  Again OP No.1 has deputed two more persons to make repair for four to six times to repair the same but, again the same problems arisen.  According to the OP No.2, there is no defects in the LG refrigerator.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-5 were got marked and closed her side.  OP No.1 has examined one J. Jayaprakash, Manager of OP No.1 as DW-1 and not produced any documents before this Forum.  OP No.2 has examined one Sri. Girish Kumar, Manager, Shimogga as DW-2 and not produced any documents before this Forum.

 5.     Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OPs have committed deficiency of service for non-replacement of the refrigerator or return the amount of Rs.26,500/- and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, the complainant has purchased LG refrigerator from OP No.1, the dealer and OP No.2 is a manufacturer on 30.10.2016 covering the warranty for two years.  After purchase of the same, some defects arisen in the LG refrigerator.  The complainant has informed the same to the OP No.1.  In turn, OP No.1 has send one Shivakumar, Technician for repair but, he could not solve the defects.  Again the complainant informed the same to the OP No.1 and OP No.1 send two more persons for repair the refrigerator but, the problems could not solve.  Then the complainant has handed over the LG refrigerator to OP No.1 on 28.03.2017 and OP No.1 assured that, he will replace the same without delay but, they have done so.  The OP No.1 has filed version and taken a contention that, he is only a seller and doing the business and working for principal to principal basis.  But both of them have agreed that the complainant has purchased the LG refrigerator from the OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2.  But there is some defects in the LG refrigerator manufactured by OP No.2 and OP No.1 is only a dealer to sell the articles on the basis of commission. OP No.2 is a manufacturer if any defects found in the articles sold by OP No.1, OP No.2 has to solve the problem.

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OPs.  Those documents shows that, the complainant has purchased one LG refrigerator from OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.26,500/- on 30.10.2016 vide cash Bill No.2657.  OP No.2 is the manufacturer, manufacturers will supply the articles to the dealers.  The duty of the dealer is only to sell the same on commission basis whatever the articles send by the manufacturer.  Here the OP No.1 is a dealer who sold the LG refrigerator to the complainant on commission basis.  Both of them agreed that the complainant has purchased the LG refrigerator from OP No.1.  According to the OP No.2, if any defects arisen in the LG refrigerator, it is the mistake committed by the OP No.2 not by OP No.1.  Ex.A-1 to 5 produced by the complainant shows that, the complainant has purchased LG refrigerator from the OP No.1 and also produced guarantee card issued by the OP No.1.  The complainant has send the legal notice to the OPs as per Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 and 5, the reply given by the OP No.1 and 2 to the complainant.  But in all the process, the OPs have agreed that the complainant has purchased LG refrigerator from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2.  According to the OP No.1, he has deputed one Shivakumar and other two more technicians for repair the LG refrigerator but, it did not done so.  It is purely a defective material supplied by the OP No.2 to OP No.1.  In turn, the OP No.1 has to sell the same to the customers.  Here, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.,1.   Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

            The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

            It is ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to hand over the new refrigerator to the complainant.  If fails to hand over the same, OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.26,500/-, the cost of the refrigerator along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

            It is further ordered that the OP No.1 is hereby directed to cooperate the complainant for recovery the same from OP No.2. 

            It is further ordered that the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

            It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 22/12/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

                                     

          MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1: Sri. J. Jayaprakash, Manager of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2: Sri. Girish Kumar, Manager of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Tax invoice dated 30.10.2016
02	Ex-A-2:-	Owner’s Manual
03	Ex-A-3:-	Legal Notice dated 04.04.2017
04	Ex.A-4:-	Reply notice dated 13.04.2017
05	Ex.A-5:-	Reply notice dated 18.04.2017

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**