Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/379/2014

K.R.Venkatachalam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Directer, M/s.Eueka Forbes Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

04 May 2022

ORDER

                                        Date of Complaint Filed : 08.09.2014                                                         

                                        Date of Reservation      : 20.04.2022

                                       Date of Order               : 04.05.2022                                                         

 

                                                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B JIJAA, M.L.,                                             : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,            :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,      : MEMBER II

 

                                                                        CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.379/2014

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^th DAY OF MAY 2022

 

K.R. Venkatachalam,

B-7, Coronet Manere Apartments,

39/9, Dr. Ranga Road,

Mylapore

Chennai- 4.                                                                                                                                        ... Complainant                                

 

..Versus..

The Managing Director,

Eureka Forbes Ltd,

New No.31, Old No.14,

First Floor, Burkit Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.                                                                                                                          ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s.K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Opposite Party and having treated the written arguments of Complainant as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

                                                                                                   ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund  Rs.8740/- paid by the Complainant towards the full payment for the Aqua Guard ‘Classic’ model with 24% interest per annum and to pay Rs.60,000/- towards compensation and for mental agony and hardship suffered by the Complainant and to pay the cost of the proceedings.

2.     The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The case of the Complainant is that the Sales Specialist of the Opposite Party visited the house of the Complainant on 22.05.2014. He tested the quality of the water, and found that ‘Aqua Guard’ Classic Model is suitable which is directly supplied and serviced by the Opposite Party compared to their models sold through shops. The Complainant had just shifted to Chennai and was finding it very difficult to get water bottles supplies at the door steps, in peak summer. The Complainant was assured by the Sales Specialist that advance of Rs.2000/- if paid immediately by cash the machine could be couriered within 1 or 2 days. The advance was paid. The machine was delivered on 26^th May 2014. On receipt of the machine, the Sales Specialist promptly came to collect the balance of the total cost of Rs.8990/- towards the machine, to enable to install on the same day as to why the balance to be paid in full when installation required the service of a mechanic the Sales Specialist that needful would be done to on assurance waited for the whole day and on the next day stopped buying the bottled water expecting installation. The Complainant tried to contact the Sales Specialist but the call was never answered, in desperation called Customer care and registered the grievance. From 28^th May the Complainant called Customer Care every morning for ten days till 6^th June, 2014 and the stock reply used to be that the grievance would be addressed within 24 hours and no contact number was provided when insisted for it. Only on 6^th June, 2014 the customer care Manager of the Opposite Party  informed that a plumber would be sent to install the machine. After the unsuccessful attempt by the Opposite Party the Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Party for asking the uninstalled machine to be taken back and to refund  the cost of the machine and to compensate for the mental agony, negligence of the Opposite Party as well as the cost for the continued buying of bottled water which was in high demand. The Complainant has sent letters dated 10.06.2014, 13.06.2014 and 30.06.2014 requesting to resolve the issue. On 2 Occasions officials of the Opposite Party spoke over the telephone that the amount paid would be refunded and the uninstalled Aqua Guard would be taken back since the purifier was not installed the Complainant had to buy cans of water which incurred lot of expenditure. The Opposite Party is responsible for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

3.    Written Version of the Opposite Party in brief are as follows:-

        The Opposite party submit that the Aqua-Guard machine was delivered without any delay.  The Opposite Party Company is always a service oriented and the Machine will be delivered in time and Complaints of the customers will be immediately attended without any delay. This Opposite Party is not a manufacturer and only directly marketed  the subject products. The machine was delivered on 26^th May 2014 and assured to install on same day is denied. But  the Complainant wanted the machine to be installed on the same day, in spite of explanation that the installation could not done on the same day, as they had informed that the machine will be installed within 10 working days. On 28^th May 2014, the customer care personnel informed that the machine will be installed at his convenience. Though the Opposite personnel went to his home to install the machine many times from 28^th May 2014 evening onwards, till 6^th June 2014, since the Complainant’s house was locked, he could not install, as the Complainant was not cooperating for the installation with ulterior motive. On 6^th June 2014, the installation manager called him and informed that the plumber would come to install if he is at home. The plumber of the Opposite Party visited to install the machine on 6^th June 2014, where the house was not locked. Opposite Party’s staff spoken to him, he was not ready to listen and then the Sales Head visited twice to convince the Complainant to install the machine, but he was very adamant that, he will not allow it to be installed and the Opposite Party never mentioned the machine was defective instead if he is not willing they will arrange for refund of amount. Though the Opposite Party was ready to refund but the Complainant was not agreeable instead he was willing to unduly enrich himself, by keeping the machine as well as getting the amount refunded. This fact would show that the Complainant has not approached with clean hands and therefore the Complainant is liable to be dismissed. In response to the letters dated 10.06.2014 and 13.06.2014, the Sales head visited Complainant once again to convince the Complainant to install the machine, but the Complainant did not agree and showed interest only in getting refund. Further it was insisted by the Complainant that he wants the machine as well as the refund of amount, which is unacceptable. All the allegations against the Opposite Party are invented stories for his illegal enrichment and to defame the Opposite Party.  The Complainant has not suffered mental agony and hardship and not entitled for any compensation from the Opposite Party. There is no delay or negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party in installing the machine and hence the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation for mental agony as claimed by the Complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4      The Complainant has filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9 were marked on the side of Complainant. The Opposite Parties has filed Written Version, Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. No document was marked on the side of Opposite Party.

5.      Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

6.      Point No.1 :-

Admittedly, the Complainant had booked Aqua Guard Classic Model on 22.05.2014 and the same was delivered on 26.05.2014. The Complainant has made calls to the Customer Care for installation from 28.05.2014 to 06.06.2014. The contentions of the Opposite Party is that it was informed by them that the installation could be made within 10 working days. Further contended that though the Opposite personnel went to the Complainant’s home to install the machine many times from 28^th May 2014 evening onwards, till 6^th June 2014, since the Complainant’s house was locked, the Opposite Party  could not install, as the Complainant was not cooperating for the installation with ulterior motive, but no documentary evidence has been filed in support of the above contentions made.

Further the contention of the Opposite Party is that the technicians of the Opposite party went on 28.05.2014 for installation and found the house of the complainant was locked on the other hand it was contended that on 28.05.2014 the Opposite Party Personnel called and informed the complainant that the machine will be installed at his convenience, which are contradictory and has not been supported by any documentary proof. Hence it is clear that only on 06.06.2014 the opposite Party had went for installation of the machine of the Complainant.

On 06.06.2014 the Opposite Party attempted to install the machine of the Complainant and the same was found not working, which was confirmed by the said technician as found in Ex-A.4.  But the contention of the Opposite party is that the person who had signed Ex A – 4 is a plumber and he is not a competent person to certify that the machine is defective and he does not know English and he was not aware of what was written in Ex A- 4 and he has signed as a token of his presence and hence Ex A-4 is not acceptable. On contrary it was contended that the said Plumber was not allowed by the Complainant to install the machine and insisted to take back the machine and to refund the amount, for which he had replied the Complainant that if he was not interested to install the machine, he will speak to his superior and get refund for the machine. Therafter the Sales Head of the Opposite party visited twice to the Complainant’s house to convince him to install the machine but the Complainant was adamant in allowing the machine to be installed and he was not agreeable for returning the amount, but the Complainant needs both machine and refund for the machine, the above said contentions are not supported by any documentary evidence.      

Admittedly, the Opposite Party received the letters dated 10.06.2014 and 13.06.2014 sent by the Complainant requesting the Opposite Party to take back the machine and to refund the amount with compensation for the inordinate delay of installing the machine and the contentions of the Opposite Party on receipt the said letters Sales Head of the Opposite Party went to convince the complainant to install the machine or agreed to refund the amount, but the complainant insisted that he wants the machine as well as refund of amount. As it was clearly mentioned in Ex A-6 a letter dated 13.06.2014 addressed to the Opposite Party it was clearly mentioned that    “I had requested this in a Letter (dated 10.06.2014) and delivered this in person on the same date, to your office on Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. I have discussed this issue with you over phone multiple times and also in person at your office. You said someone will be visiting us to retrieve the device and refund our Money. But no one has visited us and our money has still not been refunded.”  Further in the said letter it is clear mentioned that “I had expected some response. But sadly nothing has happened hence. It seems that my complaint has not been taken seriously and acted upon. As a customer who has paid the full amount as required to Eureka Forbes, I think this disrespect & disregard from your company for our hardship is quite wrong” and in conclusion it is clearly informed to the Opposite Party that “I wish to inform you that unless immediate action is taken upon my request for refund and compensation (at the latest by 16-Jun- 2014), I will take this issue to the consumer court and seek redressal.”  Hence, the contentions of the Opposite Party is not at all acceptable as the same is not supported by any documentary evidence and further nothing prevented the Opposite Party from giving reply to the letters of the Complainant as admitted to be received by the Opposite Party when the grievances of the complainant has been put in writing.

Even thereafter the Complainant had addressed a letter dated 30.06.2014 which was marked as Ex A -8 wherein it is clearly mentioned that “ over the last 2 weeks, multiple people have talked to us from Eureka Forbes. We got some calls from Mr.Rajendran, Ms.Renu Priya of Eureka Forbes promising us of action. The Marketing executive who sold us the unit – Mr.Sridharan visited our house on 21-Jun-2014 and listened to our predicament. He has been asked to inform us also promised us that the device would be taken and a cheque for our compensation would be given by the company by 24-Jun-2014.” And in conclusion it was clearly stated that “ But even after trying hard for a resolution for almost a month, there seems to be no intention from the company to resolve this issue. As a last resort I am forced to take this issue to the consumer court and seek redressal from the august body.” So it is crystal clear that in spite of receipt of the said letters of the complainant the Opposite party has taken any concrete steps to resolve the issue of the complainant and hence the contentions of the Opposite party is not at all acceptable except to hold that the Opposite Party has committed gross negligence in installing the machine delivered to the complainant, though the complainant claimed the machine was agreed to be  installed on the same day of delivery i.e., on 26.05.2014 but the machine was not found to be installed even within 10 days from the date of delivery as contended by the Opposite Party, i.e, before 04.06.2014, whereas it is clear that only on 06.06.2014, i.e, after 10 working days the Opposite party had attempted to install the machine of the complainant, clearly amounts to    deficiency of service committed by the Opposite party. 

Further we are of the considered view that as the non working of the machine has not been identified as manufacturing defect by the Opposite Party during installation or thereafter after issuance of letters by the Complainant, and as admitted by the Opposite Party that they have tried to convince for installation of the machine, which clearly shows that there was no manufacturing defect and the same was found to be not working as confirmed by the Opposite Party in Ex A-4, hence this Commission holds that the manufacturer need not be added as an Opposite Party for the failure on the part of the Opposite Party to install the machine of the Complainant.

 Hence we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party has failed to keep up their promises and  assurances in installing the Aqua Guard machine of the Complainant which  clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party.

7.      Point No.2:-

        On discussion made to Point No.1, the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.8,990/- paid by the Complainant as per Ex.A-2  for purchase of ‘Aqua Guard’ Classic Model together with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of this order and entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and hardship suffered by the Complainant and also entitled for Rs.3,000/- towards cost.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. Hence, the Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.8,990/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Only) to the Complainant together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards mental agony suffered on the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards cost of this complaint, within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.

         In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this Wednesday, 4^th day of May 2022.

 

  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:

 

Ex.A1	22.05.2014	Advance paid vide Receipt No.404/006020 for Rs.2000/- issued by CSS Mr.P.Sreedharan
Ex.A2	22.05.2014	Delivery challan No.23610069 dt.22.05.2014 for Rs.8990/-
Ex.A3	26.05.2014	Final payment towards Aqua Guard Classic Model Water Purifier vide receipt No.404/006020 issued by CSS Mr.P.Sreedharan
Ex.A4	0606.2014	Confirmation of Mr.P.Mathan, Eureka Forbes certifying the unit is not in working order
Ex.A5	10.06.2014	Letter addressed to the Manager, Customer Care, Eureka Forbes Ltd., Chennai personally Handed over
Ex.A6	13.06.2014	Letter Addressed to Mr.Venkatachalam, Customer Care Eureka Forbes new No.31, Old No.14 First Floor, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai dt.13.06.2014 sent by Professional Courier vide MAA 520790522
Ex.A7	14.06.2014	Professional Courier receipt vide MAA 520790522
Ex.A8	30.06.2014	Letter addressed to The Managing Director, Eureka Forbes, New No.31, Old No.14, First Floor, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17 sent by Regd.Post.
Ex.A9	01.07.2014	Registered Postal receipt No.ART28470065410 of letter addressed to Managing Director EFL, dt.30.06.2014

              

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:

NIL

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                             PRESIDENT