Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

300/2010

K.Ravichandran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Next retail Shop India Ltd., & another - Opp.Party(s)

Dr.S.Padma

06 Jun 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 14.07.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 06.06.2019

                                                                                  

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.300/2010

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

                                 

K. Ravichandran,

S/o. Mr. T. Kanniah Pillai,

Plot No.23, Bajanai Koil Street,

Mathina Nagar,

Rajakilpakkam,

Chennai – 600 073.                                                        .. Complainant.                                       

 

                                                                                                ..Versus..

 

1.  The Managing Director,

Next Retail Shop,

Next Retail India Ltd.,

No.152, North Usman Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

2. The Managing Director,

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar Surajpur Kasna Road,

Greater Noida,

Uttar Pradesh – 201 306.

 

3. The Proprietor,

Whisen Enterprises,

(Authorized Service Centre for

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.),

No.1/23, First Street,

Mudichur Road,

West Tambaram,

Chennai – 600 045.

 

4. The General Manager,

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

SND Warehousing Survey,

No.461/C1, Puzhal Village,

Chennai – 600 066.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : Dr. S. Padma

Opposite parties 1 & 3                           : Exparte

Counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 4 : M/s. T.R. Kumaravel &

                                                                 another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 4 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he purchased One Ton Split A/c LG Model No.LSA12U1CAE1 Serial No.512ABBX000028 on 22.01.2006 vide invoice No.ARSSACHECE109/17419 dated:16.11.2009 towards Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) and on installation, its function is satisfactory.  Hence, the complainant purchased another One Ton Split A/c  LG Model No.LSA12U1CAE1 Serial No.512DRVL000631 on 29.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.18,500/- vide Bill No.0047078, Invoice No.148 and entered into an Annual Maintenance Contract No.1180679, Invoice No.ARSSACHECE110/807 dated:19.04.2010 and paid a sum of Rs.2,206/-.   The complainant submits that the said Air Conditioner was not functioned properly due to remote problem and the complainant lodged a complaint on 03.04.2010 (i) for regular AC, (ii) Remote problem in the New AC mentioning the complainant service viz ID Numbers are C1040307890 and C 1040308006.  The technician visited on 04.04.2010 and carried out the service and renewed the Annual Maintenance Contract after issued a Temporary Cash Receipt.  The technician who attended the fault assured that the remote will be replaced and thereafter, the technician has not turned to any follow up or replace even after repeated requests made over phone on various dated 28.04.2010, 03.05.2010, 12.05.2010, 13.05.2010 & 15.05.2010.  Hence the complainant sent an email dated:18.05.2010 but no action taken by the opposite parties.   The act of the opposite parties 1 to 4 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     Inspite of receipt of notices, the opposite parties 1 & 3 has not appeared before this Forum and hence, the opposite parties 1 & 3 were set exparte. 

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 2 & 4 is as follows:

The opposite parties 2 & 4 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 2 & 4 state that they deny and take strong exception to the attempts of the complainant to show as if the opposite parties 2 & 4 lures its customers by making false promises.  The extract of such representations made by the opposite parties 2 & 4 in its website are true and the opposite parties 2 & 4 is known to worldwide for its quality products and providing the best service.   The opposite patties 2 & 4 state that they deny the allegations that the service technicians who attended to the complaint of the complainant found the remote to be working and thus as such there was no question of the  same turning up on the next day to replace the same.  In so far as the remote is concerned which appears to be the complainant’s only grievance, the opposite party made enquires and learnt that the same is functioning properly.   Further it is denied by the opposite parties 2 & 4 that Mr. Madhavan assured to give the complainant a fresh remote.  The complainant’s complaint was cancelled because the address was not found.  There is no question of disappointing the complainant.    The opposite parties 2 & 4 stand by its Annual Maintenance Contract and the terms and conditions contained therein, but when there is no defect with the Air Conditioner or its parts, including the remote, question of deficiency does not arise.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 & 4 and hence, the complaint against the opposite parties 2 & 4 is liable to be dismissed.

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

5.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1 & 3 has not appeared before this Forum even after due service of notice and hence, the opposite parties 1 & 3 have set exparte.   The complainant filed his written arguments.  Heard both sides.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased One Ton Split A/c LG Model No.LSA12U1CAE1 Serial No.512ABBX000028 on 22.01.2006 vide invoice No.ARSSACHECE109/17419 dated:16.11.2009 towards Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) and on installation, its function is satisfactory.  Hence, the complainant purchased another One Ton Split A/c  LG Model No.LSA12U1CAE1 Serial No.512DRVL000631 on 29.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.18,500/- vide Bill No.0047078, Invoice No.148 as per Ex.A1 and entered into an Annual Maintenance Contract No.1180679, Invoice No.ARSSACHECE110/807 dated:19.04.2010 as per Ex.A2 and paid a sum of Rs.2,206/-.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the said Air Conditioner was not functioning properly due to remote problem and the complainant lodged a complaint on 03.04.2010 vice service ID is C1040307890 and C 1040308006.  The technician visited on 04.04.2010 and carried out the service and renewed the Annual Maintenance Contract after issued a Temporary Cash Receipt as per Ex.A3.  The technician who attended the fault assured that the remote will be replaced and thereafter, the technician has not turned to any follow up or replaced.  Even after repeated requests made over phone on various dated 28.04.2010, 03.05.2010, 12.05.2010, 13.05.2010 & 15.05.2010.  Hence the complainant is constrained to sent an email dated:18.05.2010 as per Ex.A4 which was not closed.   Thereafter, without any alternative solution the complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with cost.   But the complainant has not produced the defective remote or has not pleaded what are the defects in the remote.

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 4 would contend that the allegation of various complaint dated:08.04.2010 to 15.05.2010 are imaginary and there is no proof.  The complaint dated: 03.05.2010 was duly attended.  The defective nature of the remote has been rectified properly. Without proving the defectiveness / non-function, the complainant has issued legal notice dated:18.05.2010 and filed this case.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 & 4.   The opposite parties 2 & 4 are ready to replace the remote.  The amount of claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- without any basic reason cannot be granted.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 4 shall replace the remote of same brand with a new one and shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for 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 4 are jointly and severally liable to replace the remote of the same brand with a new one 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 08^th day of June 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	29.12.2008	Copy of cash credit memo of Next Retail Shop
Ex.A2	19.04.2010	AMC Invoice (ARSSACHECE 110/807)
Ex.A3	04.04.2010	Copy of Happy Living Plan (HLP No. KC 13268)
Ex.A4	18.05.2010	Copy of email
Ex.A5	19.05.2010	Copy of reply mail received from LG Customer Service Department
Ex.A6		Copy of list of Service request ID received from VM-LGCARE by Mobile SMS

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 & 4  SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT