Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/414/2007

M/s.Usha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Godrej - Opp.Party(s)

L.Baskaran

11 Jun 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 01.10.2007

                                                                          Date of Order : 11.06.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.414/2007

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

                                 

Mrs. Usha,

No.4, Sargunam Street,

Kamaraj Nagar,

Avadi,

Chennai – 600 071.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                

                                                                                                  ..Versus..

1.  The Godrej (Godrej Appliances),

Represented by its Service Manager,

No.1, SIDCO Industrial Estate,

Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 098.

 

2. M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.,

(Appliance Division),

M/s. Balaji Traders,

Rep. by its Manager,

Plot No.10, 5^th Cross Street,

Bridhavan Nagar, Valasaravakkam,

Chennai – 600 067.

 

3. M/s. Ramalakshmi & Co.,

Rep. by its Manager,

New No.92, (Old No.224-B) N.M. Road,

Avadi,

Chennai – 600 054.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. L. Baskaran & another

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.

3^rd Opposite party                                  : Exparte

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund the entire cash to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental tension and torture and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she has purchased 1.5 ton Godrej Window Air Conditioner for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 31.03.2006.  The complainant submits that from 20.01.2007, the Air Conditioner was not functioning.  Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint before the 2^nd opposite party who is the Authorised Service Centre and registered the complaint on 24.01.2007.  The Service Engineer also after inspection of the Air Conditioner gave a report that Air Conditioner was not working and it will be rectified within the warranty period.  The complainant submits that according to the Service Engineer and his report that Air Conditioner was not working because of manufacturing defect.   The complainant submits that even after repeated requests and complaints, the 2^nd opposite party has not responded to rectify the defects as alleged.   The complainant submits that during that time, the complainant was in advanced stage of pregnancy needed the Air Conditioner.  So, the complainant requested the opposite parties repeatedly for rectification of defects for which also, the 2^nd opposite  party has not responded. The complainant submits that a legal notice dated:11.05.2007 was issued to the opposite parties in clear terms that the Air Conditioner was functioned only for 9 months and started problems since 20.01.2007 which has not been rectified by the opposite parties even after repeated requests. The act of the opposite parties 1 to 3 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainant has purchased the Air Conditioner for a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the 3^rd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The said Air Conditioner was admittedly functioned for 9 months and thereafter gave problems.   The 2^nd opposite party, M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is not represented by M/s. Balaji Traders.  The said M/s. Balaji Traders is the authorised dealers of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.   The said M/s. Balaji Traders has not right to represent M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the Air Conditioner was purchased on 31.03.2006 till 20.01.2007, there was no complaint.   There is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  The Job Card is very clear that the Service Engineer inspected the Air Conditioner and reported that not working.  It cannot be treated as manufacturing defect.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that at the time of installation, the complainant was well instructed about the usage of the Air Conditioner and the importance of usage of Standard Quality Stabilizer.  Since, the voltage level at different places vary from time to time proves a quality stabilizer is must.  The Service Engineer inspected the Air Conditioner and noted that the complainant did not have a stabilizer.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the Air Conditioner functioned for nearly 10 months and could not have developed any manufacturing defect.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the claim for the refund of a sum of Rs.15,000/- is unsustainable and the claim for compensation is imaginary. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Inspite of receipt of notices, the 3^rd opposite party has not appeared before this Forum and hence, the 3^rd opposite party was set exparte. 

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of the price of the Air Conditioner as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and torture with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The 3^rd opposite party after receipt of notice has not appeared before this Forum; Hence the 3^rd opposite party set exparte.  Both the complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2 filed their respective written arguments. Heard the complainant’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents. The complainant pleaded and contended that she has purchased 1.5 ton Godrej Window Air Conditioner for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 31.03.2006 as per Ex.A1, copy of purchase bill.  Further the contention of the complainant is that from 20.01.2007, the Air Conditioner was not functioning.  Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint before the 2^nd opposite party who is the Authorised Service Centre and registered the complaint on 24.01.2007 as per Ex.A2.  The Service Engineer also after inspection of the Air Conditioner gave a report that Air Conditioner was not working and it will be rectified within the warranty period.  Ex.A3 is the copy of warranty card showing 12 months warranty i.e. upto 31.03.2007.  Further the contention of the complainant is that according to the Service Engineer and his report that Air Conditioner was not working due to manufacturing defect; because the Service Engineer has not specified the nature and cause of defect even after inspection. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that even after repeated requests and complaints, the 2^nd opposite party has not responded to rectify the defects as alleged.  Further the contention of the complainant is that during that time, the complainant was in advanced stage of pregnancy needed the Air Conditioner.  So, the complainant requested the opposite parties repeatedly for rectification of defects for which also, the 2^nd opposite  party has not responded which caused great mental agony.   Further the contention of the complainant is that a legal notice dated:11.05.2007, Ex.A4 was issued to the opposite parties in clear terms that the Air Conditioner was functioned only for 9 months and started problems since 20.01.2007 which has not been rectified by the opposite parties even after repeated requests and claimed refund of a sum of Rs.15,000/- with interest and compensation.  The opposite parties after acknowledgment of advocate notice have not given any reply.   Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this case.

8.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the complainant has purchased the Air Conditioner from the 3^rd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  It is also admitted that the complainant has  purchased the Air Conditioner for a sum of Rs.15,000/-.  The said Air Conditioner was admittedly functioned for 9 months and thereafter gave problems.   The 2^nd opposite party, M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is not represented by M/s. Balaji Traders.  The said M/s. Balaji Traders is the authorised dealers of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.   The said M/s. Balaji Traders has no right to represent M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.   The complainant has not taken any steps to amend the cause title also.   But on a careful perusal of records including complaint, it is very clear that M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ( Godrej Appliance Division)  itself is sufficient to establish the manufacturer who is added as a party. 

9.     Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that admittedly, the Air Conditioner was purchased on 31.03.2006 and functioned till 20.01.2007, there was no complaint.   There is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  The Job Card, Ex.A2 is very clear that the Service Engineer inspected the Air Conditioner and reported that not working.  It cannot be treated as manufacturing defect.  But it is very clear from Ex.A2 that even after inspection, the Senior Engineer has not noted what are the defects in the Air Conditioner and why such defects which has not been explained by the opposite parties.  If any manufacturing defect arises, the Air Conditioner never function.  No reason given for non-working condition of the Air Conditioner by the Service Engineer amounts to suppression of material facts.   Since admittedly, the Service Engineer is an expert person who can very well give a detailed report regarding the Air Conditioner.  But he has failed to give such report proves deficiency in service.

10.    Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that at the time of installation, the complainant was well instructed about the usage of the Air Conditioner and the importance of usage of Standard Quality Stabilizer. Since, the voltage level at different places vary from time to time requires a quality stabilizer is a must. The Service Engineer inspected the Air Conditioner and noted that the complainant did not have a stabilizer.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2, there is nothing regarding the stabilizer.  There is no iota of evidence produced by the opposite party in this case to prove that complainant did not have a stabiliser.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that admittedly, the Air Conditioner functioned for nearly 10 months and could not have developed any manufacturing defect.   But the opposite parties and its Service Engineer has not mentioned the reason for the defect and suppressed the material defect.  The opposite parties also has not come forward to rectify the defect within the reasonable time.  Muchless, within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the claim for the refund of a sum of Rs.15,000/- is unsustainable and the claim for compensation is imaginary.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is apparently clear that the opposite parties’ Engineer even after due inspection has not come forward to note the reason for the defect and the nature of defect which amounts to suppression of material facts and this Forum has very well come to the conclusion that the alleged defect is that manufacturing defect.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.15,000/- being the cost/ price of the Air Conditioner and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) being the cost / price of the Air Conditioner and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of June 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	31.03.2006	Copy of the Air conditioner purchase bill No.869 from the 3rd opposite party M/s. Ramalakshmi & Co.
Ex.A2	24.01.2007	Copy of Customers Cash Memo – Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., (Appliance Division)
Ex.A3		Copy of User Guide – Window Air Conditioners Capacity 1.5 Ton with warranty
Ex.A4	11.05.2007	Copy of legal notice to the opposite parties 1 to 3
Ex.A5	12.05.2007	Copy of acknowledgement card for the above notice
Ex.A6	06.02.2007	Copy of Ultrasonography Report

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT