DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                            ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  B.COM.,                                                                                 ......MEMBER-II

                

CC. No.135/2022

THIS TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

Mr.P.S.Rajan, 

S/o.Late Mr.P.K.Selvarajan,

No.29, New No.63, Padavattamman Koil Street,

P.B.Post, Chennai – 600 012.                                                            ……Complainant.  

                                                                                 //Vs//

1.The General Manager,

    Sathya Agencies Private Limited,

    No.218, Bricklin Road,

    Purasaiwalkam, Chennai -600 007.

 

2.The Manager,

    Sathya Agencies Private Limited,

    No.218, Bricklin Road,

    Purasaiwalkam, Chennai -600 007.                                        …..opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                                     :   Party in person

Counsel for the opposite parties                                                              :   exparte 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 17.08.2022 in the presence of the complainant who appeared party in person and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer 

Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in not servicing the Stabilizer by the opposite parties along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the Stabilizer VGuard VG Crystal with a fresh product to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and physical stress caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service along with cost of the complaint.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

The crux of the complaint was that the complainant purchased a Samsung LED television and VGuard VG Crystal Stabilizer on 12.05.2017.  For the purchase of the Stabilizer VGuard VG Crystal 36 months was given as warranty period.  Even before the warranty period expired the Stabilizer started giving problem and the same was informed to the opposite parties who asked the complainant to bring the Stabilizer to showroom for repairing.  When the Stabilizer was brought to the showroom of the opposite parties the problem was found and the product was received by the staff of the opposite parties vide a service job card No.1141 assuring that the same would be rectified within four days as entered in the job card.  But till date the Stabilizer was not returned inspite of several attempts made by the complainant and thus aggrieved the present complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in not returning the Stabilizer VGuard VG Crystal after repair.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A9. In spite of sufficient opportunities and notice given the opposite parties did not appear before this Commission and hence they were set ex-parte on 29.07.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version.

Points for consideration:

Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not servicing the VGuard VG Crystal Stabilizer given by the complainant for repair?

If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

 PointNo.1:

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Invoice of Opposite parties dated 12.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;

Warranty card for stabilizer was marked as Ex.A2;

Service Job Card of opposite parties dated 07.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;

 Letter issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dated 20.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;

Acknowledgement card for the proof of service was marked as Ex.A5;

Letter issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 30.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;

Acknowledgement card for the proof of service was marked as Ex.A7;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 26.06.2019 was marked as Ex.A8;

Acknowledgement card for the proof of service was marked as Ex.A9; 

We heard the oral arguments adduced by the Party in Person/Complainant and as no written argument is necessary if the complainant appear in Party in Person this commission did not insist the Party in Person to file the Written Arguments. The arguments advanced by the Party in Person for the complainant was that as per Ex.A1 the invoice given by the opposite parties he purchased a Samsung LED television along with VGuard VG Crystal Stabilizer on 12.05.2017 for a sum of Rs.2,250.01/- and the warranty card shows that the said product is guaranted for 36 months in their words as follows “Congratulations on owning a product that is not just thoughtfully designed, but also the most advanced in its category, without a doubt.  Every stabilizer is inspected and tested thoroughly before leaving out premises.  If any defect in material or workmanship occurs.  This undertaking does not extend to any equipment for which the voltage stabilizer is connected”.  Further the service Job Card No.1141 (Ex.A3) issued by the opposite parties shows that the Stabilizer has been given for repair for “OUT PUT PROBLEM” and it was found that the approximate delivery date mentioned in the said job card was 4 days and as the same was not delivered within 4 days as assured by the opposite parties the complainant filed the present complaint for the reliefs as mentioned above.

We perused the pleadings and documents adduced by the Party in Person/Complainant.  It is seen that a Samsung LED television along with Stabilizer VGuard VG Crystal was purchased on 12.05.2017 for a sum of Rs.2,250.01/- and the same was entrusted with the opposite parties for service as there was some output problems vide job card No.1141.  Though there is documentary proof for giving the Stabilizer to the opposite parties there is no proof that the same was returned to the complainant after service.  The legal notice sent by the complainant was in proof of the complainant’s allegation that the same was not returned to the complainant.  The opposite parties also failed to appear before this commission inspite of sufficient notice to rebut the allegations made by the complainant.  In such circumstances we are of the view that the opposite parties after receiving the Stabilizer for service had failed to return the same to the complainant as assured within 4 days and thus had committed deficiency in service. Thus the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:

With regard to the reliefs to be granted to the complainant, in the complaint the complainant has sought for replacement of the Stabilizer with fresh product.  However, we are of the view that the opposite parties may be directed to repair the Stabilizer within four weeks and if they failed to do so the same may be replaced with a fresh product.  Further we also award compensation of Rs.5000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and also order cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties; 

a) to repair the Stabilizer V Guard VG Crystal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which to replace the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees  five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30th day of August 2022.

Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 12.05.2017 Invoice of opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A2 .............. Warranty card for stabilizerVGuard VG Crystal. Xerox

Ex.A3 07.05.2019 Service Job Card. Xerox

Ex.A4 20.05.2019 Letter issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A5 ............. Acknowledgemnet card. Xerox

Ex.A6 30.05.2019 Letter issued by the complainant to the 1st oppostie party. Xerox

Ex.A7 ............... Acknowledgement card. Xerox

Ex.A8 26.06.2019 Legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A9 .............. Acknowledgement card. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties;

 Nil

 

Sd/-                                                               Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT