Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/8/2012

Boyana Nageswara Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sono Vision Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

R Srinivasa Rao

24 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:05-01.2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:24-01-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                             Saturday, the 24^th day of January, 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.8/2012

Between:-

Boyana Nageswara Rao, S/o late Vera

Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged 53 years,

Qr.No.6-B, Coromandel Park, Sriharipuram,

 Malkapuram Post, Visakhapatnam-11.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.Sono Vision Electronics, represented by its

   Proprietor, Near Diamond Park, Visakhapatnam-16.

2.Godrej Smart Care, represented by its

   Authorized Agent, C/o Sri Ashok Refrigeration

   & A/c Works, D. No. 49-19-3/3,   Lalithanagar,

   Opp: Lalitha Temple Lane, Visakhapatnam-16.

3.Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing  Company Limited.,

   represented by its Chairman, Pirojshanagar,

   Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 079.

                                                                                        …  Opposite Parties    

                           

          This case coming on 12.01.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri K. Appa Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to replace the Godrej Refrigerator with a new piece or to pay a sum of Rs.15,150/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand, one hundred and fifty only) with interest @ 24% p.a. from 20.09.2009 till the payment, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation, and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs.

 

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that on 20.09.2009 the Complainant purchased GODREJ EON GDE 25 B2 (GODREJ 25 EON)  from the 1^st Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.15,150/- vide Bill No. R0000808 who is Authorized Dealer for Godrej Company.   The 2^nd Opposite Party is the service centre at Visakhapatnam and the 3^rd Opposite Party is manufacturer of the said Godrej Refrigerator.   Since the date purchase the Complainant has faced various technical problems with the said Refrigerator for several times.   Every time the Complainant has been approached the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the Authorized Service Agent of the 3^rd Opposite Party for rectification for which the 2^nd Opposite Party endorsing the said Complainant.   Till today the Refrigerator is not working condition due to problems, as a result, the Complainant has suffered both physically and mentally due to the act of the Opposite Parties.

 

3.       The 1^st Opposite Party sold the defective Refrigerator to him by collecting huge amount, the 2^nd Opposite Party has not rectified the defectives properly, inspite of approached by incurring his valuable time and amount.   Further he addressed so many letters for exchange of new Refrigerator in the place of defective piece, but both the Opposite Parties are not taking any steps in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the Complainant.   Having regard no other option, he got issued a Legal Notice dated 24.09.2011 to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 demanding them to exchange the defective piece of refrigerator with the new piece but they have not taken any steps though reply is given.   Hence, the Complaint.

 

4.       The 3^rd Opposite Party filed counter adopted by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 at the time of purchase of refrigerator by the Complainant it was installed with the help of technical person and the refrigerator was delivered after full demonstration and working conditions and the Complainant has accepted the product after verification and checking .   The Opposite Parties stated the instructions manual was supplied to the Complainant by drawing his attention to the mode of operation and the condition of maintenance and as such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   The defects as complained by the Complainant are not, as a result of conduct and the product was kept under test and watch and the same was released after thorough satisfaction after working conditions before the same is sold.   The Opposite Parties stated that the Refrigerator and its conditions are pending upon the tropical conditions and the product sold to the Complainant was put in use at the area where is high degree of humidity generates because of the coastal influence.     The following are the dates of inspection and tests conducted on 23.10.2010, 16.04.2011, 23.06.2011 and 8.9.2011 as a measure of re-conditioning at the request of Complainant which were not similar and recurring and every due care is taken ensuing the working conditions of the Refrigerator at the time of first repair and the Complainant had utilized the refrigerator for a considerable long period and the relevant dates will indicate the functioning of the Refrigeration in between the periods.   The Complainant having utilized and obtained best services out of their product cannot file the complaint for the value of the refrigeration and the 3^rd Opposite Party is ready to demonstrate the working conditions of the refrigerator.    Therefore, there is no deficiency as contemplated under law and the defects pointed out by him are believed to be as a result of tropical conditions apart from violation of the conditions of the instructions manual.   The Opposite Parties even ready to render its services on payment of required charges permissible under law keeping in view of the costs of the parts required, if any and the services as an expert in this regard.  

 

5.       To prove the case of the Complainant he iled his sworn affidavit and got marked as Exs.A1 to A11.   On the other hand, 3 sworn affidavits are filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties.     No documents were marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

 

6.       Ex.A1 is the Cash Receipt No.R0000808 for Rs.15,150/- issued by the 1^st Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 20.09.2009.    Ex. A2 is the Warranty Card dated 20.09.2009.             Ex.A3 is the Free Service under Warranty Memo dated 26.10.2009.   Ex.A4 is the Service Bill and Delivery Note issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant on 06.11.2010.   Ex.A5 is the Bill No.65 for Rs.350/- issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 17.04.2011.   Ex.A6 is the letter issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 09.09.2011.   Ex.A7 is the Legal Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 on 24.09.2011.   Ex.A8 is the Reply Notice addressed by the 3^rd Opposite Party to the Complainant’s counsel on 16.11.2011.       Ex.A9 is the Reply Notice addressed by 3^rd Opposite Party to the Complainant’s counsel dated 19.11.2011.    Ex.A10 is the Acknowledgement from the 1^st Opposite Party on 12.11.2011.  Ex.A11 is the Acknowledgement from the 2^nd Opposite Party on 12.11.2011.

 

7.       The Complainant filed his written arguments.

 

8.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

 

9.       Now the points that arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs of advance amount with interest, compensation and costs.

 

10.     During the course of the arguments i.e., on 28.11.2014 the 3^rd Opposite Party filed a memo after issuing notice to the 3^rd Opposite Party that they will replace the Refrigerator and sought for time and subsequently on 12.01.2015 they filed way bill showing the new refrigerator was delivered to the Complainant.   Therefore, question of delivery of new refrigerator in the place of defective refrigerator does not arise.

 

11.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of the Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Party and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Party did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 5,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.5,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered. 

 

12.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for refund of the sum of Rs.15,150/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for claims for cost deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

13.     In the result, Complaint is allowed, in part directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 24^th day of January, 2015.

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                            Sd/-

Male Member                   Lady Member                                          President

 

 

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	20.09.2009	Cash Receipt No.R0000808 for Rs.15.150/- issued by the 1st OP to the Complainant.	Original
Ex.A02	20.09.2009	Warranty Card	Original
Ex.A03	26.10.2009	Free Service under Warrant Memo	Original
Ex.A04	06.11.2010	Service Bill and Delivery Note  issued by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant.	Original
Ex.A05	17.04.2011	Bill No.65 for Rs.350/- issued by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant.	Original
Ex.A06	09.09.2011	Letter issued by the 3rd OP to the Complainant.	Original
Ex.A07	24.09.2011	Legal Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to Ops	Office copy
Ex.A08	16.11.2011	Reply notice issued by the 3rd OP to Complainant’s counsel	Original
Ex.A09	19.11.2011	Reply Notice issued by 3rd OP to Complainant’s counsel	Office copy
Ex.A10	12.11.2011	Acknowledgement of 1st OP	Original
Ex.A11	12.11.2011	Acknowledgement of 2nd OP	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-                                           

                                      -Nil-

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

Male Member                     Lady Member                                    President