Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/166/2016

N.Annamalai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Service Centre, M/s. Sharp India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.Uma Maheshwari

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 15.04.2016

                                                                          Date of Order : 07.03.2019

                                                                                  

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

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B., PGDCLP.                : MEMBER-I

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

 

C.C. No.166/2016

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 07^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

                               

N. Annamalai,

S/o. Mr. K.T. Natarajan,

B-604, Raheja Regency,

No.90, Santhome High Road,

R.A. Puram,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                       .. Complainant.                           

..Versus..

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. Sharp India Limited,

Gat No.686/4, Koregaon Bhima,

Tal, Shirur District,

Pune – 412 216.

 

2. The Manager,

Service Center,

M/s. Sharp India Limited,

No.28/30, Vivekanandar Street,

North Usman Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

3. M/s. Girias Investment Pvt. Limited,

PA-Building, 48, Venkatakrishna Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

          

Counsel for the complainant           :  M/s. S. Uma Maheswari & 

                                                            another

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party  :  M/s. M. Muthupandian & others

Opposite parties 2 & 3                     :  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 replace the refrigerator of model 678 litres 4 doors SJ-FP79V-Sl (Silver) comprising unit Serial No.6120800023 of the same model or to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,300/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of realization and pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he purchased a 678 Litres 4 doors SJ-FP79V-SL Model refrigerator Serial No.6120800023 brand manufactured by the 1^st opposite party product, from the dealer, 3^rd opposite party on 31.10.2013 vide receipt No.RAP/2297 for a sum of Rs.1,08,300/-.  The complainant submits that as per advertisement of the opposite parties, the complainant purchased the fridge which is a quality one, made of finest stainless steel with different colours.  But within one year from the date of purchase, the doors of the fridge started rusting.  The complainant submits that on 28.11.2014, one service person from the 2^nd opposite party came and inspected the fridge and collected a sum of Rs.650/- towards service charges.  The complainant submits that eventhough there is no warranty, the agreed quality of the fridge as per the advertisement and warranty has not been maintained by the opposite parties.  Even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties has neither come forward to replace the fridge nor replace the spare parts and rectify the defects of rusting the doors has not done proves the deficiency in service.   Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:28.10.2015 for which, there is no reply.  The act of the opposite parties amounts 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 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant purchased the said refrigerator on 31.10.2013 from the 2^nd opposite party for which, one year guarantee and warranty given for all parties other than the compressor.  The said guarantee period ended on 30.10.2014.  The complainant made complaint only after the expiry of guarantee and warrantee.  Immediately after receiving the complaint, the 1^st opposite party’s mechanic attended the complaint in the refrigerator and informed that the door of the refrigerator was rusted due to cleaning the doors by using the Colin.   The 1^st opposite party states that as per the email dated:23.11.2015, the complainant was informed that the rusted door will be replaced on chargeable basis.   But the 1^st opposite party has not come forward to do the job.  The 1^st opposite party states that the alleged rusting of door is not a manufacturing defect.    Since the doors of the fridge is made of stainless steel had rusted very quickly.   The 1^st opposite party states that ‘all the four doors will be replaced at free of cost’.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence, the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In spite of receipt of notices, the opposite parties 2 & 3 had not appeared before this Forum and hence, the opposite parties 2 & 3 were set exparte for non-appearance.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 is marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party. 

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the refrigerator Model 678 litres 4 doors SJ-FP79V-SL (Silver) or alternatively refund a sum of Rs.1,08,300/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite parties 2 & 3 remained exparte.  The complainant and the 1^st opposite party filed their respective written arguments.  Heard their Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased 678 Litres 4 doors SJ-FP79V-SL Model refrigerator Serial No.6120800023 manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the dealer, 3^rd opposite party on 31.10.2013 as per Ex.A1, purchase bill for a sum of Rs.1,08,300/-.  Ex.A2 is the warranty card.   Further the complainant contended that as per Ex.A3, advertisement of the opposite parties, the complainant purchased the fridge which is a quality one, made of finest stainless steel with different colours.  But within one year from the date of purchase, the doors of the fridge started rusting.  Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 are the service report challans showing the  defects of rusting of all doors proves the low quality of the fridge.  Further the complainant contended that on 28.11.2014, one service person from the 2^nd opposite party came and inspected the fridge and collected a sum of Rs.650/- towards service charges which is also endorsed in Ex.A4.  But no proper service done and the replacement also not given proves deficiency in service.   

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that eventhough there is no warranty, the agreed quality of the fridge as per the advertisement and warranty has not been maintained by the opposite parties.  Even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties has neither come forward to replace the fridge nor replace the spare parts and rectify the defects of rusting the doors has not done proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:28.10.2015 as per Ex.A6 for which, there is no reply.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case for replacement of the fridge or alternatively refund of the cost price of the fridge.

8.     The learned Counsel for the 1^st opposite party contended that the complainant purchased the said refrigerator on 31.10.2013 from the 2^nd opposite party for which, one year guarantee and warranty given for all parties other than the compressor.  The said guarantee period ended on 30.10.2014.  The complainant made complaint only after the expiry of guarantee and warrantee.  Immediately after receiving the complaint, the 1^st opposite party’s mechanic attended the complaint in the refrigerator and informed that the door of the refrigerator was rusted due to cleaning the doors by using the Colin.   But there is no record.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that as per the email dated:23.11.2015, the complainant was informed that the rusted door will be replaced on chargeable basis.   But the 1^st opposite party has not come forward to do the job also.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the alleged rusting of door is not a manufacturing defect.  But as per Ex.A3, it is very clear that good quality of stainless steel will be used for manufacturing the fridge.   Since the doors of the fridge is made of stainless steel had rusted anything like proves the quality of stainless is under question which is used for manufacturing the fridge.  Further, the 1^st opposite party admitted in the written version that ‘all the four doors will be replaced at free of cost’ proves the deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally shall replace the doors of the fridge and service the fridge at free of cost in a better manner  within one month and handover to the complainant with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace the doors of the refrigerator and service the refrigerator in a better manner at free of cost within one month and handover to the complainant and to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamount shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount 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 07^th day of March 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	31.10.2015	Copy of refrigerator purchase bill
Ex.A2		Copy of warranty card
Ex.A3		Copy of advertisement
Ex.A4	24.11.2014	Copy of Service Report Challan
Ex.A5	24.08.2015	Copy of Service Report Challan
Ex.A6	28.10.2015	Copy of legal notice of the complainant to the.1st  opposite party
Ex.A7	05.11.2015	Copy of acknowledgment card with postal delivery track

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1

23.11.2015

Copy of letter by the 1st opposite party to the complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT