CC No.275.2017

Filed on:20.02.2017

Disposed on:25.03.2019

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF MARCH 2019

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.275/2017

PRESENT:

 Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

         PRESIDENT

              Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                       MEMBER

                                     V/S

ORDER

BY SMT.L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 20.02.2017 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to return the cost of the product of Rs.11,900/- and Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment.   

2. The brief facts of the complaint as under:

In the complaint, the Complainant states that on 14.01.2016 Complainant purchased an OTG model 66 RCSS for Rs.11,900/- from Opposite Party vide Invoice No.164.This OTG from the day one has been giving trouble, since the element was faulty.The Company representative “Mr.Kannan” came and replace the element, however the issue persisted and sun flame was duly notified.One more attempt was made inorder to replace the element thereafter, but still the issue was not resolved.Post this number of emails were sent to the customer care department at NCR and numerous phone calls were made, none of which were of any benefit.The Area Sales Manager “Mr.Syed” was approached multiple times in this regard via phone calls and WhatsApp.However, the issue still never got resolved.Mr.Syed also made a visit to apartment on 13^th December and promised that he will replace the unit in a weeks’ time.We were completely frustrated by them and had told him that if the issue will not be resolved, we will approach the consumer court; Post which nothing has happened, we have approached Syed multiple times again on phone but to no avail.The Company has in one of its emails, agreed for the replacement of the defective product.But till not responded.Hence, this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Parties put their appearance through their Counsel and filed their version.  In the version pleaded that the Complainant purchased an OTG Model 66RCSS from Opposite Party No.2.   The Opposite Parties denies that the product has any defect and that it did not function right from day one of the purchase.  That the products manufactured and placed for sale by the Opposite Party No.1 undergoes rigorous quality check from the company.  It is true that, there was a complaint from the Complainant, which complaint was attended to the satisfaction of the Complainant.  It is true that, Mr.Syed is the Area Sales Manager of the Opposite Party No.1 Company.   Mr.Syed had also attended the issue raised by the Complainant.  This is because the technician of the Opposite Party No.1 Company, had replaced thermos state of the OTG purchased by the applicant, which though was functioning correctly was replaced for the satisfaction of the applicant.  Mr.Syed who had visited the applicant  appraised the applicant that the model which the applicant had purchased requires larger time for heating up compared to smaller version of OTG as the model is larger volume one.  The product sold to the applicant is fully functional and operational and has no manufacturing defect, therefore it was not liable for replacement.  This complaint is filed about a year after the purchase.  The applicant has used and had been using the product since it was purchased.  This clearly makes out that, the product is functioning well and the applicant has different intentions than the one expressed in the complaint.  The Opposite Parties replied to all the complaints and mails promptly, whenever they had received any complaint or query from the applicant.  There is no deficiency in the service or deficiency in the quality of the product.   Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. The Complainant Smt.Reema Malhotra filed her affidavit by way of evidence and closed her side.  On behalf of Opposite Parties, the affidavit of Mr.Syed, the Area Sales Manager has been filed.  Heard arguments of Complainant.

5.  The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?

2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6. Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:- As looking into the allegations made in the complaint as well as version of Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that on 14.01.2016 the Complainant purchased an OTG model 66 RCSS from Opposite Party No.2 by paying Rs.11,900/- bearing Invoice No.164.  The OTG from the day one has been giving trouble. The Company representative “Mr.Kannan” came and replace the element.  But still the issue was not resolved.  The Area Manager of Opposite Party promised that he will replace the unit in a weeks’ time, but till today issue will not be resolved.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in her testimony, she has reiterated the same and produced the copy of Invoice, copy of mails.  By looking into these documents, it reveals that the Complainant purchased OTG Model 66 RCSS from Opposite Party No.2 on 14.01.2016 by paying Rs.11,900/-.  From the day one it has been giving trouble.  The Opposite Parties representative replace the element but issue was not resolved.  For that the Area Manager of Opposite Parties agreed to replace the unit within a weeks’ time.  But till today not comply their promise.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of Complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.

8. The defence of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the product is in good quality.  Because the products manufactured and placed for sale by the Opposite Parties undergoes rigorous quality check from the Company.  It is true that there was complaint from Complainant, which Complaint was attended to the satisfaction of the Complainant.  The product is fully functional and operational and has no manufacturing defect, therefore it was not liable for replacement.  This complaint was filed about a year after the purchase.  The Complainant has used and had been using the product since it was purchased.  In support of their defence, Mr.Syed, the Area Sales Manager of Opposite Parties, in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same.  Except the interested version and affidavit of Syed, the Opposite Parties have not produced any evidence in support of their defence.  The Complaint was filed different intentions and there is no manufacturing defect.  In that event, the Opposite Parties ought to have produced relevant documents to substantiate their defence, but they failed to produce the same. 

9. With this argument, nodoubt the Complainant purchased OTG Model 66 RCSS from Opposite Party No.2 on 14.01.2016 by paying Rs.11,900/-.  From day one Complainant faced trouble in that product.  The Opposite Parties representative come and replace the element, but issue till today not resolved.  The Complainant requested Opposite Parties for the replacement of the product.  For that Area Manager of Opposite Parties promised that he will replace the unit in weeks’ time.  But Opposite Parties still not replaced the product.  Due to deficient act of Opposite Parties, the Complainant sustained mental agony.   Hence, this point is held in affirmative. 

10. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

The Opposite Parties are directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,900/- to the Complainant. 

The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental agony.

The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this litigation to the Complainant.

The Opposite Parties are directed to pay aforesaid amount within 45 days from the date of this order.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 25^th day of March 2019)

        MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Mrs.Reema Malhotra, who being the Complainant has filed her affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Copy of Invoice and Email correspondences.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri. Syed, Area Sales Manager of 1^st Opposite Party by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Respondent:

                             Nil

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT