Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/396/2013

G.Narayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Enterprises by its Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

Yurendra Kumar

31 Oct 2019

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 19.12.2013

                                                                               Date of Disposal : 31.10.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.396/2013

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

                                 

G. Narayanan,

S/o. Mr. K.N. Appan,

No.2, 1^st Street,

Kambar Nagar,

Madurvoyal,

Chennai – 600 095.                                                        .. Complainant.  

                                                                                               ..Versus..

 

1. Sai Enterprises,

Represented by its Proprietor,

No.3, Bagyalakshmi Street,

West Banu Nagar,

Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053.     

 

2. Shree Associates (Service Centre),

Represented by its Manager,

No.12/30 B, Desika Road,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                               ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant           : Mr. V. Yurendrakumar

1^st opposite party                              : Dismissed for default on 

                                                           25.01.2016

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : M/s. Nandini Ram & another

 

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 prays to refund a sum of Rs.3,600/- the cost of the defective Tower fan with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 19.01.2013 till repayment and to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service for having sold the defective fan and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and pain caused by such deficiency in service with cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that (during the exhibition at Congress Ground, Teynampet, Chennai) on 19.01.2013 during the exhibition at Congress Ground, Teynampet, Chennai placed an order for the purchase of a Sooriya Tower Fan for Rs.3,600/- on believing that the quality of the tower fan is very good.  The complainant submits that on 20.01.2013 the fan was delivered with warranty of one year which made by way of endorsement on the backside the estimate that “Warranty is for 1 year and Free service for two years”. After two weeks, the Tower Fan failed to function.   Immediately, the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party for due service and requested for replacement of fan by the 1^st opposite party.   The replaced fan also not functioned properly.   Even after repeated service by the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd replaced fan also not functioned.  Hence, the complainant took the fan to the 2^nd opposite party for proper service and repair.   The 2^nd opposite party has neither repaired the fan nor handed over the fan to the complainant.  Till date, the said fan is with the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:01.11.2013 for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply.   The notice of the 1^st opposite party returned ‘unserved’.  The opposite parties has not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.   The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     The notice sent to the 1^st opposite party through this Forum was left without instruction.   Hence, it was intimated to send fresh notice to the 1^st opposite party to correct address privately. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the complainant has not taken steps and at long lost, the complaint against the 1^st opposite party is dismissed for default on 25.01.2016.

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

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the 1^st opposite party approached the 2^nd opposite party for taking up service of the goods sold by the 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party is rendering a service centre for his livelihood.  On 28.02.2013, the complainant soon approached the 2^nd opposite party and states that the Tower Fan was purchased from the 1^st opposite party which was working properly.   Hence, the 2^nd opposite party received a fan and checked the fan and found correct and delivered the same on 12.03.2013.  Thereafter once again, the fan was taken to the 2^nd opposite party for repair; was duly repaired and kept ready for delivery.  Since, the complainant has not come forward to take delivery of the fan, the 2^nd opposite party delivered the fan to the complainant on 12.03.2013. Thereafter on 20.08.2013, the complainant informed that there was some defect.  Hence, the 2^nd opposite party collected the fan and duly repaired and informed the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.  While so, the complainant requested for a new replacement.  The alleged defects are imaginary.  The complainant took delivery of the fan on 04.09.2013. Again on 25.09.2013, the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party that the replaced fan also not functioned properly.   The 2^nd opposite party checked the fan in the presence of the complainant.  But the complainant refused abruptly and has not come forward to take delivery of the same even after repeated intimation and reminders.  Hence, the fan is with the 2^nd opposite party in a working condition.  The 2^nd opposite party states that he is neither the manufacturer nor a dealer but only a service provider.    Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence, the complaint as against the 2^nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked.    Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.    

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.3,600/- towards the cost of defective Tower Fan with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service and Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.25,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The complainant after filing the complaint has not taken proper steps for service of notice to the 1^st opposite party for a long time.  Hence, the case against the 1^st opposite party was dismissed for default on 25.01.2016.   The written argument of the complainant also not filed for a long time and was closed on 25.10.2018.   The opposite party filed written arguments.  Heard their respective Counsels also.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that on 19.01.2013 during the exhibition at Congress Ground, Teynampet, Chennai placed an order for the purchase of a Sooriya Tower Fan for Rs.3,600/- on believing that the quality of the tower fan is very good.  Ex.A1 is the copy of bill.  The complainant further contended that on 20.01.2013 the fan was delivered with warranty of one year which made by way of endorsement on the backside of Ex.A1 that “Warranty is for 1 year and Free service for two years”.  After two weeks, the Tower Fan failed to function.   Immediately, the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party for due service and requested for replacement of fan by the 1^st opposite party.   The replaced fan also not functioned properly.   Even after repeated service by the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd replaced fan also not functioned.  Hence, the complainant took the fan to the 2^nd opposite party for proper service and repair.   The 2^nd opposite party has not repaired the fan and handed over to the complainant.  Till date the said fan is with the 2^nd opposite party proves the deficiency in service.  The details of defect can be seen from Ex.B1 filed by the 2^nd opposite party also proves the deficiency in service. The complainant issued legal notice dated:01.11.2013 as per Ex.A2 for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply.   The notice of the 1^st opposite party returned ‘unserved’.   Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case for refund of the cost of the tower fan and damages.  

7.     The contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the 1^st opposite party approached the 2^nd opposite party for taking up service of the goods sold by the 1^st opposite party proves the authorised service agent.   The 2^nd opposite party is rendering a service centre for his livelihood.  On 28.02.2013, the complainant soon approached the 2^nd opposite party and states that the Tower Fan was purchased from the 1^st opposite party which was working properly.   Hence, the 2^nd opposite party received a fan and checked the fan and found correct and delivered the same on 12.03.2013 as per Ex.B1.  Thereafter once again, the fan was taken to the 2^nd opposite party for repair; was duly repaired and kept ready for delivery.  Since, the complainant has not come forward to take delivery of the fan.  The 2^nd opposite party delivered the fan to the complainant on 12.03.2013.  Thereafter on 20.08.2013, the complainant informed that there was some defect.  Hence, the 2^nd opposite party collected the fan and duly repaired and informed the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.  While so, the complainant requested for replacement of a new fan.  The alleged defects are imaginary.  The complainant took delivery of the fan on 04.09.2013.  Again on 25.09.2013, the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party that the replaced fan also not functioning properly as per Ex.B3.   The 2^nd opposite party checked the fan in the presence of the complainant. But the complainant refused abruptly and has not come forward to take delivery of the same even after repeated intimation and reminders.  Hence, the fan is with the 2^nd opposite party in a working condition.  The complainant has liberty to take delivery of the same.  Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that he is neither the manufacturer nor a dealer but only a service provider.  The case against the 1^st opposite party is dismissed already.   The compensation claimed in exorbitant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the 2^nd opposite party is directed to service the fan properly to the complainant and directed to collect the fan after due checking.   There is no order so as to cost.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The 2^nd opposite party is directed to service the fan properly and the complainant is directed to collect the fan after due checking.   There is no order so as to cost.

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 31^st day of October 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	09.01.2013	Copy of bill
Ex.A2	01.11.2013	Copy of legal notice with acknowledgment due
Ex.A3		Copy of returned cover

 

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1	13.03.2013	Copy of entry No.1236 of service register of the 2nd opposite party
Ex.B2	20.08.2013	Copy of entry No.267 of service register of the 2nd opposite party
Ex.B3	25.09.2013	Copy of entry No.369 of service register of the 2nd opposite party

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                                                       PRESIDENT