Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/450/2015

S.Sathia Chandran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s.Infiniti Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.P.T.Geotom, V.Sathish

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                          Date of Filing  : 23.11.2015                                                                           

                                                                              Date of Order : 04.04.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge 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.                                :  MEMBER-I

              DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                            

CC. NO.450/2015

WEDNESDAY THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

                                             

S. Sathia Chandran,

Advocate,

S/o. Mr. R. M. Swaminathan,

No.300/183, II Floor,

Thambu Chetty Street,

Chennai – 600 001.                                                     .. Complainant.

                                                            ..Vs..

 

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. INFINITI RETAIL LTD TRADING as CROMA,

Unit No.701 & 702, 7^th Floor,

Kaledonia, Sahar Road,

Andheri East,

Mumbai – 400 069.

 

2. The Store Manager,

M/S. INFINITI RETAIL LTD TRADING as CROMA,

Ground Floor,

 KENCES Towers,

 No.1, Ramakrishnan Street,

North Usman Road,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for complainant                :  M/s. P.T. Geotom

For opposite parties                       :  Mr. S. C. Yogarajan

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to replace the defective “Croma” 335 Litre refrigerator with a new one and  to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant with cost Rs.20,000/-.

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

          The complainant submits that on 03.07.2015, he purchased a “Croma” 335 Litre refrigerator from the 2^nd opposite party’s showroom.  The complainant was told that the said refrigerator was last and only the display piece was available and he was offered the same for a total sum of Rs.19,544.90,  The complainant was assured that the said piece was in good condition and  the same would be delivered to him after testing it again and packaging it.  The complainant paid the entire amount on 03.07.2015  and he was told that free delivery will be made only on Thursdays.  Accordingly, the said refrigerator was delivered to the complainant only on 09.07.2015.  

2.     On delivery, the complainant found that there was no user’s manual available with the said refrigerator,  ON enquiry with the delivery people, the complainant was told that the user’s manual could be collected from the 2^nd opposite party on any day.  Unfortunately, on the next day, when the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party, he was told that the user’s manual was not immediately available and it would take about a week for them to issue him.  The complainant’s request was registered as SR09071500052.  Though he was not delivered the user’s manual, the said reference was sent as “Resolved” through SMS on the same day itself.  When the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party replied that the user’s manual was awaited from the Central office.

3.     The complainant stated that the delivery of the manual was being delayed, he insisted for immediate delivery.  Upon the same he was advised by the 2^nd opposite party that like any other fridge, it could be plugged in and used.  Thereupon, when the complainant carried out the said instructions, to his utter shock and dismay, he found that though the refrigerator remained in “on:” position and the compressor ran, there was absolutely no cooling inside the refrigerator.  The complainant immediately informed the 2^nd opposite party from whom the refrigerator was purchased and asked them to raise a complaint for servicing the same.  On 30.08.2015, the 2^nd opposite party registered the complaint as CHN300815FS00010 and advised the complainant to await response to the same but no action was taken for a long time.  Finally on 30.08.2015,a service personnel called the complainant over his mobile and stated that he  would come to his house the next day and would inspect the refrigerator.  On 12.09.2015, the service personnel reached the complainant’s house and inspected the refrigerator. Thereupon, he informed the complainant that the refrigerator was found to be defective and he would report the same to the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant submits that it was highly unfortunate that even after 2 months and 14 days on that day the complainant has been forced to keep the refrigerator idle as it has been found to have unserviceable manufacturing defect.  Thus the complainant has been put to untold mental agony due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party. 

4.     On 18.09.2015 the complainant issued a legal notice to replace the defective product.  On receipt of the same the complainant was invited by the 2^nd opposite party to visit his retail outlet and when the complainant visited the retail outlet of the 2^nd opposite party, he insisted the complainant to pay the difference amount of the unit which he wants to chose for the defective one but the complainant rejects the same.  The complainant again sent a rejoinder dated:07.10.2015 which was duly received by the opposite parties on 16.10.2015 & 08.10.2015 respectively.  The complainant states that till date the opposite parties have not chosen to meet the demand of the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

5.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The complaint is wholly misconceived, false, frivolous, baseless, bad, vexatious, not maintainable, gross abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The complainant had purchased a Croma 335 Litre refrigerator from the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.19,544.90.  The product was a display product and it was sold on “as is where is basis” which was communicated to the complainant in unequivocal terms. At the time of sale and delivery of the product  the complainant was already informed that the manual of the product is not available.  However after delivery of the product, the complainant insisted for manual of the product which was not readily available with the opposite party.  The opposite parties have received the complaint from the complainant regarding the product on 30.08.2015.  The opposite parties have contacted the complainant and sought his time before sending the technician for inspecting and servicing the product.   After getting the appointment of the complainant, the technician had visited the complainant at his residence and inspected the said product.  Since the technician could not resolve the issue with the said product, the opposite parties had offered the complainant to refund the price of the product or alternatively the complainant can buy product of similar value from the opposite parties. 

6.     The complainant sent legal notice dated:18.09.2015 and which has been replied by the opposite parties reiterating that since the manufacturing of the similar product is stopped, the opposite party is unable to replace the product, and that the opposite parties are ready to refund the purchase price of the product. However, the complainant wanted the opposite party to replace the product with either Samsung or LG refrigerator  of 335 L having a value in excess of R.26,990/-which was politely rejected by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties  had offered the complainant to give  a discount of Rs.1000/- on the product of his choice with further 5% discount as and by way of gift voucher.  However the complainant was insisting to give a Samsung or LG refrigerator of 335 L worth in excess of Rs.26,990/- at  the purchase price of the said product and if the opposite parties refused to provide the same, the complainant threatened to file a complainant before this Forum. The opposite parties once again submit that they were still willing to refund the purchase price of the said product or replace with the product of complainant’s choice.  It would be just, necessary, convenient and in the interest of justice that the complainant be directed to accept the replacement of the said product by some other product of similar value or accept the refund of the purchase price of the said product which will be provided by the opposite party and accordingly the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed with heavy  costs.

7.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no documents marked.

8.      The point for consideration is :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the Croma 335 litre refrigerator as prayed for?  

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.20,000/- as prayed for?

9. On Point:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 have not filed any proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  The opposite parties and their Counsels have not filed any written arguments or adduced any oral arguments also.  Heard the complaint’s Counsel.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit of complainant and documents.  The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that on 03.07.2015, the complainant visited the opposite party’s store and chosen to purchase “Croma” 335 Litre refrigerator”.  The 2^nd opposite party told that the said refrigerator which is the display piece alone available and was offered to sell for a sum of Rs.19,544.90, Ex. A10 is the purchase bill.  Further, the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party assured that the said refrigerator is in good condition and it would be delivered at free of cost on every Thursday and thereby, it was delivered to the complainant on 09.07.2015.  Immediately after delivery, the complainant has not found the user’s manual made available with the said refrigerator.

10.   On enquiry with the delivery people, they had told that it could be collected from the 2^nd opposite party.  When the complainant had approached the 2^nd opposite party, it was informed that the user’s manual will be supplied only after one week.  The request of the complainant also registered but till date  the user manual was not supplied.  Upon advise from the opposite party that like any other fridge, it could be plugged in and used. When the complainant plugged in the refrigerator, there was no cooling inside the refrigerator eventhough the compressor is functioning.  The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party and complained the same which was also registered.  On 11.09.2015, the service personnel came to the complainant’s house and inspected the refrigerator and informed that the refrigerator is defective and he reported the same to the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant was compelled to keep the refrigerator idle, since it is having its own manufacturing defect.  On 18.09.2015, Ex.A2, legal notice issued, evenafter the receipt of the notice, the opposite party has not come forward to repair or to replace the refrigerator.  On the other hand, the opposite party sent Ex.A5, reply with untenable contention.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party.  The only contention raised in the written version by the opposite party is that the impugned refrigerator was sold “as is where is basis” But the opposite party has not produced any record to prove such contention.  The Ex.A1, purchase bill also totally silent regarding the condition “as is where is basis”.  It is also seen from the records and pleadings that the impugned refrigerator having manufacturing defect. On considering the  facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of considered view that the opposite party shall replace the refrigerator within one month or pay the cost of Rs.19,544.90 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint. The opposite parties 1 & 2 also liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective “Croma” 335 litre refrigerator with a brand new one within one month from the date of the receipt of this order or to pay the cost price of Rs.19,544.90 (Rupees nineteen thousand five hundred and forty four and ninety paise only) and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)  for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within 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  04^th day  of  April 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1 – 03.07.2015 –Copy of purchase bill and exchange policy

Ex.A2 – 18.09.2015 - Copy of legal notice caused by the complainant to the opposite parties.

Ex.A3 – 20.09.2015 – Copy of the acknowledgement card received from the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A4 – 23.09.2015 – Copy of the acknowledgement card received from the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A5 – 28.09.2015 -  Copy of the reply notice received from the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A6 – 07.10.2015 – Copy of Rejoinder notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties

Ex.A7 – 08.10.2015 -  Copy of acknowledgement card received from the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A8 – 16.10.2015 – Copy of acknowledgement card received from the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A9 – Copy of Advertisement.

-

Opposite party’s side document: -  Nil 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT