Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/282/2015

Eureka Forbes Limited, The Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

S. Rajamani - Opp.Party(s)

K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi

19 Jan 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 3.

                  BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                      ::     PRESIDENT                       

                                      Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No.282/2015

  (Against the order in C.C. No. 294/2013 dated 26.6.2014 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C, Coimbatore)

                                                             DATED THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

The Manager,

Eureka Forbes Limited,

New No.86, Old No. 111,

Ponnurangam Road (West),

R.S.Puram,

Coimbatore                                                       ..Appellant/2^nd opposite party

                                                Vs

1.S.Rajamani,

W/o Late Sugumaran,

1-13, S.S.Garden,

Subramaniampalayam Road,

G.N.Mill post,

Coimbatore – 29                                           ..1^st Respondent/complainant

 

2. Sree Associates,

No.16, S.P.M.Garden, B & D Colony,

Goundampalayam,

Coimbatore                                                 ..2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party

 

Counsel for Appellant/2^nd opposite party          : M/s K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi

Counsel for 1^st Respondent/complainant         : M/s C.R.Shanmuga Vadivel

2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party                   : Given up

 

        This appeal was heard on various dates and finally on 5.1.2022 in video conferencing and on hearing the arguments of the appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission pronounced the following order :-

 

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

          This Appeal was preferred by the opposite parties under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 aggrieved against the order of the District Commission Coimbatore  made in C.C.No. 294/2013, allowing the complaint in part and directing the opposite parties to rectify the defects and to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.

The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

1.       The  complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties along with a prayer to direct the 1^st opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.2400/- paid towards Annual Maintenance contract (AMC) and to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation by all the opposite parties.  

2.            It was stated by the complainant that she had entered into a contract for AMC for the Aqua Guard Classic water purifier with the 1^st opposite party who was under the control of the 2^nd opposite party/the appellant herein for the period 21.3.2013 to  20.3.2015 and had paid Rs.2400/- for the same and the AMC was renewed continuously year after year. On 13.6.2013, the complainant on seeing the instrument was not working properly, she called upon the 1^st opposite party and in response the technician named Saravanakumar arrived and rectified the problem. Again on several dates, the water purifier showed error and all the errors were rectified by the opposite party. However, on 25.6.2013 when the complainant called on the opposite parties to attend a complaint registered by her on 23.6.2013, the staff requested the complainant to contact the area manager and had given the mobile number. However he could not be contacted as the mobile number was switched off. Frustrated with the complaint status the complainant on 2.7.2013 filed a fresh complaint. But inspite of assurance given by the opposite parties that the error would be rectified soon, no technician turned to rectify the complaint. Thus after issuing a legal notice dated 8.7.2013, the complaint was filed against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and to return the AMC charges with compensation of Rs.90,000/-. The 2^nd opposite party filed version which was adopted by the 1^st opposite party had denied the allegations made by the complainant. It was stated that the AMC was in the name of one Sugumaran and that complainant was not party to the AMC. It was further submitted that they provided regular service to the complainant under AMC and replaced the carbon and filter on 4.3.2013 and after two months on 18.6.2013, the service technician attended a complaint based on the customer request. On 23.6.2013 and on 25.6.2013 certain complaints were rectified by the opposite parties. It was submitted that due to the act of the complainant in not adhering to the procedure mentioned in the user manual given by the opposite parties, the Aqua Guard got repaired several times which was rectified by the opposite parties  without default.  Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.  

3.       The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A.1 to A.5. On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and document Ex.B.1  was marked.  

4.       The District  Commission after analyzing the pleadings and documents produced by both the parties partly allowed the complaint holding that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not rectifying the defect and thus directed the opposite parties to rectify the defect along with a compensation of Rs.3000/-  and cost of Rs.2000/-.

          Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties before this Commission.

5.Point for consideration :-

Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point :-

6.       Heard the counsel for the appellant through video conferencing. There was no representation for the 1^st Respondent/complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Aqua Guard system had complaints from the beginning and was having continuous repairs only due to the non-adherence of the procedures in the user manual. The service personnel of this appellant had attended all the complaints on various dates viz; 4.3.2013, 18.6.2013, 23.6.2013, 25.6.2013, 27.6.2013 & 28.6.2013. In spite of that the complainant did not allow the opposite party to replace the PCB Board free of cost on the last occasion. Further it was submitted by the counsel that the customer service history Ex.B.1 was not considered by the District Commission which shows that the complaints had been promptly attended and thus prayed for the appeal to be allowed.

7.       The fact of entering into AMC between the parties was not disputed. However the main grievance of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party failed to provide the service when the Aqua Guard got repaired on 26.6.2013 irrespective of the fact that the complainant contacted the opposite party several times and had filed online complaints twice. It is also an admitted fact that the Aqua Guard classic was used by the complainant for more than 12 years and hence as per the finding rendered by the District Commission there is every chance for the machine to get repaired often. However till 2015, the machine was under AMC and hence it is the duty of the opposite party to provide service whenever it got fault and a complaint was made.  The opposite parties admitted that on 13.6.2013 when a complaint was made that the machine made a beep sound and red light started glowing, the same was promptly attended on 18.6.2013.  As the same problem persisted again subsequent complaints were given on 23.6.2013 and 25.6.2013 and as it was not attended a legal notice dated 8.4.2013 was issued by the complainant. It was submitted that immediately the group leader of the 2^nd opposite party contacted the complainant but the complainant refused to allow the technician inside the house. Thus in toto the appellant submitted that they were always ready and willing to provide the services as per the AMC condition and willing to fix new PCB board. On perusal of Ex.B1, the customer service history we could see that the opposite party had rectified the complaints made by the complainant on several occasions more than six times and also submitted that they were even today ready to provide service as per the AMC conditions entered between the parties. In such facts and circumstances, when there is sufficient proof that the opposite parties had attended several complaints raised by the complainant, it is not proper to direct the opposite parties to refund the AMC charges of Rs.2400/- collected by them. But it also as to be admitted that as opposite parties had entered into AMC they cannot deny their liability to rectify the defect whenever a complaint is made within the AMC period.  In such circumstances, the finding of the District Commission that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service when the complaint is not attended on 23.6.2013 and 25.6.2013 is justified and requires no interference. However, it is also seen that the AMC contract was entered into the parties on more than one occasion i.e for a continuous period of five years. If the complainant is not satisfied with the work of the opposite parties, they would not have entered into AMC continuously with the opposite parties. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that directing the opposite parties to rectify the defect by replacing new PCB board within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order alone would be appropriate in the facts and the circumstances of the case. Thus,  the order of the District Commission is partly modified to the extent that the award of compensation of Rs.3000/- is set aside. The point is thus answered accordingly.

         

              In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to cost.

 

Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                             R.SUBBIAH                        

            MEMBER                                                                                                 PRESIDENT