Date of Filing : 16.05.2011
Date of Order : 31.10.2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE URBAN 4th ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
No. 8, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560 052
Dated 31st OCTOBER 2011
PRESENT
Sri. J.N. HAVANUR ….. PRESIDENT
Sri. GANGANARASAIAH ….. MEMBER
Smt. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR ….. MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 931 / 2011
M/s. SBF Health Care Pvt. Ltd.,
No.39/41, Doddanekkundi,
Marahthahalli, Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore – 560 037.
Rep. by its Director Supriya Vasishta ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Corporate Manager,
M/s. KAFF Appliance (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Malibu Arcade, 1st Floor, Near Water Reservoir,
Malibu Town, Sohna Road,
Gurgaon – 122 101.
2. Olive & Pine,
Oliver & Pine Interiors Pvt. Ltd., No. 644,
1st Floor, 17th Main, 6th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore – 560 095.
Rep. by its Proprietor …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Smt. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against OPs are that the Complainant has placed an order with the OP for supply of Built in Dish Washer Intro 600mm. As per the order placed by the Complainant, OP2 supplied the article along with Tax Invoice bearing No. 28. For the said article he paid Rs.33,990/-. At the time of purchase, OP2 assured the performance of the article and also submitted that it carries one year warranty. OP2 also assured to exchange the product if any problem occurred within a warranty period. After convincing by the assurances of the OP2, he purchased the said article. When the Complainant found the difficulty in functioning of the machine, he immediately informed to OP1. The service engineer visited the place of Complainant and inspected the machine and he only told that the machine is having manufacturing defect and he will rectify the problem after getting the expert opinion. But he did not turn-up thereafter and not responded to email of the complaints sent to OP1. Even he sent mails to the branch office of OP1 which is situated in Bangalore. The Complainant has sent letter dated 15/3/2011 to OP1 which was duly served on OP1. Even after receiving the e-mails and letters, OP1 neither replied to the letters nor exchanged or rectified the machine. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and seeking direction from the Forum to refund his amount of Rs.33,990/- with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and other reliefs which in total Rs.63,990/-.
2. Notices sent to OPs were duly served on them. OPs were called out, but they were absent on the date of appearance. Hence, OPs were placed exparte.
3. In the course of enquiry, the complainant has submitted his evidence by way of affidavit, reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The complainant has produced copy of tax invoice & receipt issued by OP2, copy of letter addressed to OP1, copy of receipt of couriers through which he sent notice to the OP1 and copy of e-mail. Heard the counsel for Complainant and perused the records.
4. On perusal of the material documents produced by the Complainant, the complainant has purchased KAFF Built in Dish washer intra 600mm from OP2 and produced receipt to prove the payment towards the machine. OP2 has issued the tax invoice dated 26/05/2010 for Rs.29,947/- plus VAT of Rs.4043/-, in total he raised the amount for machine of Rs.33,990/-. This is the total cost of the machine. But the Complainant has produced a receipt dated 11/05/2010 for Rs.16,990/- only in which OP2 has admitted that it is balance amount to fulfill the total cost of the machine i.e Rs.33,990/-. It indicates that the Complainant has paid full amount of Rs.33,990/- to OP2 towards purchase of machine. Even in the complaint, the Complainant has not mentioned in what way OP1 is connected to this transaction. The communication is made only to OP1 and its Branch Office, through that we can understand OP1 is a manufacturer in this Complaint. The Complainant communicated several times to OP1 and also to Branch Office of OP1 which is at Bangalore for replacement of faulty dish washer machine which did not work properly and the dishes remained uncleaned. Email and telephonic complaints are also registered since from 04/11/2010 regarding problem and requesting them to replace the product. But neither OP1 replied to the said letters nor complied the demand of the Complainant nor its branch office. Hence, in our view OP1 caused deficiency in service. The Complainant never intimated to OP2 regarding the problem faced by him. Since the Machine was having manufacturing defect within the warranty period, the same can be replaced by OP1 i.e., manufacturer. But when OP2 is a dealer who received the amount and supplied the machine without checking it properly, so he is liable to answer for the shortcomings.
5. Since OP1 has manufactured it and as per the submission of the Complainant in letter dated 15/03/2011, OP1 has sent a service engineer to attend the complaint in the machine and after the inspection made by him he told that there is a manufacturing defect in the machine. The machine purchased on 11/05/2010 which carries warranty period till one year i.e., upto 11/05/2011. When the Complainant faced problem with the machine from 04/11/2010, he intimated to OP1 and not to OP2 who has issued receipt, but OP1 has not rectified his grievance in the machine. When OP1 knows that the product is in defective condition that too within a warranty period, it was his duty to replace or rectify it. But OP1 did not do so.
6. An opportunity was given to both the OPs in this regard by sending notice to them, but nobody represented and contested the matter before this Forum. If they really interested to take care of the customers after they sold the products, they would have attended the problems as early as possible. At least they would have appeared before this Forum either to rebut the allegations of the Complainant or come forward to rectify the machine. Both the OPs were absent on the date of appearance and they were placed exparte. There was no rebuttal evidence from OPs though the opportunity was given to them. So, under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has proved with material evidence that within the warranty period the Complainant faced problem in the machine and he is entitled to get the refund and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to compensate for that. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed.
OPs 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of the machine i.e., Rs.33,990/- within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which Ops are directed to pay interest @ 10% P.A. from 11/05/2010 till the date of refund.
OPs shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
The Complainant is directed to hand over the defective Dish washer to either of the OPs on receipt of Rs.33,990/-.
Both parties are given free copies of the order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of October 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
SSS
