DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.

PRESENT: - Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., President                       

Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Lady Member,

 

Between:

 

 

Vs.

 

1. The Authorized Signatory

 

2.      The Proprietor

Digital Shoppy,

Opp: R.T.C. Complex

Anantapur.                                                              …. Opposite Parties

 

 

This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of the complainant in person and Sri R.Rama Kumar, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is absent and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: 

 

1. Smt.S.Lalitha, Lady Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2  to direct them to issue a brand new Microwave Oven in the place of defective oven or pay sum of Rs.7,990/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase of oven till the date of realization, to award Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

2.         The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is resident of Guntakal and he has purchased IFB Microwave oven Model No.20SC2 for Rs.7,990/- on 07-05-2008 at Digital Shoppy, Anantapur. At the time of purchase, the complainant was assured by the opposite party that if any problem arises with the Microwave oven, they will attend within 24 hours after lodging the complaint as IFB is an International Company. After 3 months there was a problem with Microwave oven. The complainant recorded the complaint at the Digital Shoppy, Anantapur on 02-09-2008 and was given the Mobile number of one Mr.Bharani Kumar, Contract Technician, IFB and one Mr.Deva, the local technician, IFB. After repeated phone calls, Mr.Basha attended to the complaint by opening the oven and declared that the circuit board was defective. Hence, it will be replaced in his next visit. The complainant waited for 3 months, but the said Mr.Basha did not attend to rectify the defect. The complainant enquired about him on 03-01-2009 and he was told that Mr.Basha was left the company. Hence, the complainant telephoned to another technician Mr.Bharani Kumar and Mr.Deva. On 07-01-2009 Mr.Deva attended and fixed new circuit board, but the oven did not function. Mr.Deva left saying that he would send another technician Mr.Bharani Kumar within few days to rectify the problem. But Bharani Kumar did not attend saying that he was at Head Quarters and that the new circuit board is not arrived from Hyderabad etc., At last the complainant rang up to one Mr.Ramakrishna, A.P. Service Incharge and complained about the problem. Mr.Ramakrishna assured the complainant that oven would be repaired immediately. The Technician, IFB attended after seeing the problem and called Mr.Leo, Branch Manager, IFB, Hyderabad. The complainant expressed his dissatisfaction and wanted to seek justice in the court of law. After listening to the complainant, the Branch Manager also, who assured of the rectification of the problem, but the problem has not been attended as a validity period of 12 months of free service expires on 07-05-2009. The complainant constrained to file this case before the Forum for the negligent act of the opposite parties. The complainant gave the list of calls made to Digital Shoppy, Anantapur and IFB Branch. On 11-02-2009 the Proprietor of the Digital Shoppy, Anantapur directly contacted Mr.Bharani Kumar, technician in the presence of the complainant and they had a heated argument about the bad service in which Mr.Bharani Kumar admitted that oven is beyond repair. Hence, the complainant filed his case in the Forum praying to order replacement of new Microwave Oven in the place of defective oven or to pay the bill amount with interest @ 12% p.a. and award Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

3.         The 1^st opposite party in his counter denied all the allegations. They admitted that the complainant purchased IFB Microwave oven Model 20SC2 for Rs.7,900/- at Digital Shoppy, Anantapur and Warranty Card Customer Care number also supplied to the customers for any complaint or guidance required. The manual supplied alongwith machine warranty terms and conditions also mentioned in it. In the warranty card, it is clearly mentioned that for all types of repairs/maintenance under warranty, the appliances shall be brought to the nearest Company service centre or its authorized service agent. Other than this, nothing was assured. If consumer registers complaint by contacting help line/customer care number, a service technician would be deputed immediately when his turn matures in serial. In the present case, the complainant did not register the complaint with the consumer complaints center as mentioned. immediately after the complaint received in this case through circuitous route i.e. the complainant going to dealer and he in turn forwarded the complaint of the customer to Customer Care Centre etc., Mr.Basha the then technician attended the complaint and found some technical problem in the circuit board. When the technician wanted to take the Microwave oven to rectify the defect in circuit board by taking it to service centre, the complainant did not accept to hand over the oven to the technician and the technician reported the same to the customer care centre.  Subsequently, the then Technician Mr.Basha left the company of this opposite party and another technician attended and wanted to take the product back or repair, but the complainant rejected the proposal of the technician.  Vexed with the attitude of the complainant, the opposite party deputed Senior Service Engineer to attend the complaint and even with him the complainant argued at length and not allowed him to replace the problem developed circuit board. Mr.J.M.Leonard, Branch Manager for A.P. and Mr.Ramakrishna the Service Incharge for A.P. also tried to convince the complainant, but the complainant was adamant on replacement of the machine. Due to the attitude of the complainant only 12 months warranty period passed, but not due to the technicians of the opposite party. Meanwhile, the complainant filed this case against the opposite parties. After filing the complaint also the Technical Officer of the opposite party approached the complainant, but the complainant did not allow them to rectify the problem. Then this opposite party proposed to settle the matter out of court by extending the warranty period of 6 more months after rectification.  Initially the complainant agreed for this and went back on his words. The opposite party further submits that finally the complainant came up with the proposal that he will withdraw the case if the Microwave oven is replaced with new one. The opposite party authorities accepted the same without accepting the fault on their part. When the opposite party officer went to replace the item, the complainant again put up new condition that he would allow replacement subject to grant of 9 months warranty to the replaced Microwave oven. In order to close the case, the officer, who attended the complaint’s house accepted and endorsed the same on the letter and on the same letter complainant also signed returning the old one.   When on the next hearing date, the opposite party asked the complainant to withdraw the case in lieu of replacement of the machine, the complainant put up a new condition and asked for Rs.5,000/- for withdrawal of the case. The opposite party says that after receiving the new Microwave oven alongwith nine months of extension of warranty, the customer is harassing the company by not withdrawing the case. This is a clear case of malice intention on the part of the complainant. The opposite party submits that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on their part as they have attended many times for rectification and many technicians were attended whenever the service needed and there was no               co-operation from the complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainant is not entitled for compensation  such as Rs.10,000/- as pleaded. 

4.         Now basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-

 

 

 

5.         In lieu of above submissions, the complainant filed written arguments. 

 

6.       Heard both sides.

7.       POINT NO.1: There was no dispute regarding the purchase and problem regarding function of the Microwave Oven. The opposite parties replaced Microwave Oven and to that effect para 6 of the written arguments, the complainant submits that “ after the complainant had filed the case in the Hon’ble Forum, Mr.Prasanna Kumar of the IFB rang up to the complainant’s mobile several times and requested him to withdraw the case. It is Mr.Prasanna Kumar, who came up with the proposal that I.F.B. would be sending a brand new oven to the house of the complainant. The complainant after receiving the new oven made a remark on the letter to this effect on 06-09-2009 and questioned the person who had come to deliver the oven about the compensation and the costs of the case to which he replied that it was for the accounts branch of the I.F.B. to decide. “ By this it can be noticed that the defective oven is replaced by new one and the complainant is not satisfied with mere getting new one. He wanted his inconvenience should be compensated and the deficiency of service of to the  customer. The opposite party should be highlighted and when Mr.Prasanna Kumar, IFB requested him to withdraw the case as the goods were replaced with new one, the complainant expressed his dissatisfaction and wanted compensation.

 8.        It is held in the following cases:-

 

9.         The complainant is not supposed to suffer for long time after purchasing the goods for rectification. Here in this case, there was period of one year went long for replacement. The complainant suffered inconvenience though he paid the bill amount and got the product, which was defective. He could not enjoy the fruitfulness of using of the produce for   one  year  because  of  the  delay  of  the

opposite parties. Though the complainant urged for compensation of Rs.10,000/-, this Forum is pleased to award Rs.2,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization.   Accordingly, this point is answered.

10. POINT NO.2:- In the result, the complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 07-05-2009 till the date of realization within one month from the date of this order. As per plea of the complainant, the opposite parties already replaced the new Microwave Oven in the place of defective one.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 3^rd day of February, 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

 

- NIL -

- NIL -