Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/553/2018

Vishrut Nathajha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunflame Enterprises Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jul 2019

ORDER

Complaint Filed on:31.03.2018

Disposed On:23.07.2019

                                                                              

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

 

    DATED THIS THE 23^rd JULY OF 2019

 

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM - PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

                          

 

                      

CC No.553/2018

 

 

 

COMPLAINANT	Vishrut Nath Jha, 205, Vars Silver Springs, 16-E Cross, Pai Layout, Bangalore-560016.         V/s
OPPOSITE PARTy	Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., General Manager/ Managing Director, 58, Sector 27C, Mathura Road, Faridabad – 121003, Haryana, India.   Advocate – Sri.Gopal Singh

                                       

 

 

O R D E R

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

 

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainants prays to direct the OP to replace the chimney as first option, if however it cannot be exchanged with a new one, it be repaired at the earliest and to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation.

 

2.      The brief facts of complaint is as under:

 

The complainant purchased Sunflame Innova-90 Chimney through Snapdeal online marketing services vide invoice No:bS94F9F/14-15/32 dated 14.10.2014.  The said item was received and installed by the local service on 31.10.2014.  The complainant submitted that till 19.01.2018 the Chimney was alright thereafter the Chimney motor failed to start.  Hence the complainant informed the said facts to OP service center and also sent a mail to OP service centre and made calls on 20.01.2018.  The OP technician visited the complainant house and informed the problem in the mother board.  After three days the OP service centre visited the complainant house along with mother board.  The OP service centre person informed that the mother board was alright and motor was not working.

 

The complainant submitted that the above said Chimney motor is having 5 years warranty.  The service engineer asked the complainant to approach the OP Company for free replacement of the motor.  Thereafter the complainant contacted the OP Mr.Lokesh mobile who refuses to accept that the motor had five years warranty.  Thereafter the OP technician visited the complainant’s house and informed that motor was defective.  Further submitted that the technician visited the earlier was informed that there was problem in the motor.  Complainant called several times to OP to repair or change the motherboard from Company and to replace.  Finally his technician visited on 12 or 15 March 2018 with a new motherboard, again without any slip.  But the Chimney did not start.  He took the mother board back saying there was something wrong.  Thereafter he did not turn-up.  The said Chimney remains unserviceable for more than 2 months and the technicians are unable to repair it.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence left with no other option complainant filed this complaint seeking appropriate reliefs.

 

3.      After service of the notice from the office, the OP-1 appeared before this Forum and filed objections.  OP-1 denied all allegations made by the complainant and submitted that the OP-1 never received any complaint from the complainant.  OP further submitted that as per the complainant contention the product was working well till 19.01.2018 itself shows that the product was without any defect or deficiency.  OP-1 further submitted that the product sold by the OP has no manufacturing defect, therefore it is not liable for replacement.  Complaint has filed after four years of purchase.  Complainant has used the product since it was purchased.  The product is functioning well and the complainant has different intentions than the one expressed in the complaint.  The complainant with dishonest intention has approached this Forum seeking the refund of the purchase price and compensation.  Therefore OP-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP has filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objection.  Both sides have produced documents which were marked.  We have heard the arguments of both sides and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration:

 

 

1)	Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP, if so, whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?
2)	What order?

 

        6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

 

 

Point No.1:-	In the Negative
Point No.2:-	As per the order below

 

 

REASONS

 

 

7. Point No.1 On perusal of the pleadings and documents of both parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Sunflame Innova-90 (autoclean) Chimney manufactured by OP-1 vide invoice number:bS94F9F/14-15/32 dated 14.10.2014. 

 

8. The contention of the complainant that, on 19.01.2018 the said Chimney was not working hence same was informed to the service centre.  The service centre technician visited the house and informed the mother board problem.  After three days technicians visited the house of complainant along with mother board.  The service engineer informed the complainant that there is a motor problem.  Hence the complainant informed that the motor has having five years warranty and seeking for free replacement.  After several calls, the technician visited the house of the complainant and informed that there is a mother board problem.  Till today OP has not set right the problem.  To substantiate this contention the complainant has produced receipt, job card and e-mail correspondence send to the service centre.  On perusal of the receipt under warranty clause it is reported one year manufacturer warranty, one year comprehensive and 5 years on motor.  On perusal of service job slip issued by Shree Sai Enterprises, Authorized Service Centre in remarks column, it is reported as Mother board problem.  As per the warranty clause the mother board was not having 5 years warranty. 

 

9. Admittedly the complainant purchased the above said disputed Chimney on 14.10.2014 the problem was started after four years.  Hence the above said Chimney is having a five years warranty only for motor.  The complainant alleged that there is a motor problem in the said Chimney.  To substantiate this contention the complainant has not produced document to prove that there is a motor problem in the Chimney.  Further the complainant alleged that the OPs have not set right the problem in the above said Chimney.  Though several e-mail correspondence and calls made to the OP service centre, the OP service centre has not set right the problem.  On the contrary OP contended that complainant has not informed regarding the manufacturing defect in the said product. 

 

10. On perusal of the entire records the complainant has made service centre as OP-2 & 3 to this proceedings later on 26.10.2018 filed a memo seeking for deleting the service centres as a party to this proceedings.  Memo reads as here under: “repairing the above said equipment to our satisfaction and have also refunded the service charges levied earlier”.  On the above said memo it clearly evident that the OP service centre have done their duty by visiting the complainant’s house by set righting the problem in the machine.  Further on perusal of the pleadings and the documents, the complainant has failed to produce documentary evidence/expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect in the said Chimney.  Without documentary evidence it is defect to believe this Forum that there is a manufacturing defect.  Hence on the above discussion made we come to the conclusion that, there is no deficiency on the part of OP.  Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative.

 

          9. Point No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:         

              

 

 

 

 

 

  O R D E R

 

 

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No costs.

 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

   

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 23^rd day of July 2019)

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA N.R)                                             (PRATHIBHA R.K)

   MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                        

                         

                      

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Vishrut Nath Jha.

 

Copies of documents produced on behalf of complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Copy of Chimney product description manufactured by OP-1.
Ex-A2	Copy of invoice dated 14.10.2014 for Rs.12,965/-.
Ex-A3	Copy of Sunflame Service Centres in Bangalore.
Ex-A4	Copy of service job slip dated 20.01.2018.
Ex-A5	Copies of email correspondence between complainant and OP (sunflame) dated 24.01.2018, 26.01.2018, 03.02.2018, 05.02.2018, 06.02.2018 & 08.02.2018.
Ex-A6	Copy of calls made to Sunflame service centre.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Murali L.  

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OP - Nil

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA N.R)                                             (PRATHIBHA R.K)

   MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Vln*