DISTRICT FORUM:: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT
SRI S.A. KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L. MEMBER.
Thursday, 7th April, 2011
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 11/ 2011
Pasupuleti Sankaraiah, S/o Subbarayudu,
Aged about 47 years, 5/100/C, Near Bus Stand,
Nandalur, Kadapa District. ... Complainant
Vs.
1. S.S. Electronics & Refrigeration,
Rep. by its Operator Authorized Videocon Service Centre.
21/567, Paalempaapayya Street,
Kadapa city.
Ph.No.273799, 9391760601
2. TekCare India Private Limited,
Videocon Service Centre,
A-23, Road No.1, Naachaaram, I.D.I,
Hyderabad. Ph.No.040-20080941.
3. Videocon Industries Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
14 K.M Stone, Chittegan village,
Pythan Taaluk, Aurangabad District,
Maharashtra – 431105 ... Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 1-04-2011 in the presence of Sri P. Sankaraiah, Party in Person and Sri M. Sudhakar Babjee Advocate for R1, R2 and R3 set exparte upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant purchased Videocon Electrical Washing Machine model No. EW1045F. The door lock of the said washing machine was not working properly. For the same the complainant telephoned to S.S. Electronics, Kadapa Servicing Centre. After that in the year 2008 April the complainant reported a complaint to the Kadapa representators through phone. After that the mechanic came and checked the machine and said that the door locking was not proper and they will bring it soon. Like wise so many times the representatives came and checked the machine and they collected traveling allowance charges from the complainant but the machine was not repaired. Then in the year 2009 May, the complainant telephoned to Videocon Company Toll free number then they registered this complaint and they had given a No.0805090021. The complainant contacted the same number after that some mechanics came and checked the machine and said that the door locking was not with them, the same will be with Tirupathi dealers and consult with them. After that the complainant consulted the Tirupathi area officers, but no use. After some time one Ashok Kumar from Videocon Company came in person to the complainant’s house and said that to bring the machine to Kadapa service centre there he will repair the machine. On 04.06.2009 the complainant again called the Toll free number and his complaint was registered as 046090248 but no response. On 20.12.2009 the complainant with his own expenditure shifted the machine to Kadapa Servicing Centre; they kept the machine for months and did not repaired. Then again the complainant called Toll free number they replied that your complaint was renewed as WAR 1711090078, but it was not repaired.
3. Again the complainant contacted the Kadapa Servicing Centre on 20.12. 2009. As there is no door lock of the said washing machine the servicing people failed to do the repair. On 28.06.2010 the complainant addressed letters to Kadapa centre, Hyderabad service centre and Videocon Company, Maharashtra. But there is no reply from them. After all these the complainant finally on 06.07.2010 wrote a letter again to all the above three centres stating that he is going to filed a case in the Consumer Forum. On 12.08.2010 the complainant sent E-mails to customercare@vgmail.co.in and marketing@vgmail.in in detail stating the trouble of the washing machine. In reply the Videocon customer care centre stated to the complainant that he is to dial to 1800-419-4040 or 39404040. After some time the complainant sent a register post letters stating the troubles of the washing machine to Kadapa centre, Hyderabad and Videocon company Maharashtra on 14.08.2010, but no response. Hence the complaint.
4. Counter filed on behalf of the Respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 stated that he is not the proprietor or authorized operator of Videocon Company. The respondent no.1 never visited the complainant’s house and checked the washing machine of the complainant at any point of time and he is not the authorized operator of Videocon. The alleged letters dt.24.06.2009 and 20.12.2009 are not sent by this respondent.
5. R2 and R3 filed a counter stating that their company Tekcare India Private Limited has provided services up to 31st August, 2010 and subsequently from 01.09.2010 onwards all Electrolux product service provider were changed and the same is run by M/s. PE Electronics Limited, flat No.205 to 207, Dimond block, 2ndfloor, Lumbini Rock Del, Rock Del compound, adjacent to Eenadu Office, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. For that respondent 2 and 3 stated that the washing machine of the complainant was more than 7 years old and it had become absolute in its model due to that only the company was unable to provide services to the complainant due to non availability of spare parts. Further states that they had depreciation policy for the benefit of their customers to whom they cannot provide service within 5 years of time due to non availability of spare parts.
6. R2 and R3 submit that the complaint of the complainant is pending since long in time. The management had decided to buy back this defective product at of 80% depreciation and 20% adjustable against purchase of new product under exchange.
7. Ex.A1 to A10 are marked on behalf of the complainant.
From the above pleadings these points were taken for consideration.
Issues:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
2. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the
Respondent 1 to 3?
3. To what relief?
8. Point No.1 & 2: The complainant did not stated anywhere in his complaint that when he purchased the washing machine. The complainant had not filed the purchasing bill. The complainant started correspondence from the year 2008 onwards as respondent 2 and 3 stated in their counter the complainant can exchange machine at 80% depreciation and 20% adjustable against purchase of new machine. Ex.A1 to A10 did not support the case of the complainant. The complainant did not file any receipts or warranty card belongs to R1 to R3, all these shows that the complainant filed this complaint to get unlawful gain only. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the respondent 1 to 3. First of all the complaint itself is a fake complaint it seems it is a CHANCE complainant. So the complaint is not maintainable. Respondents 1 to 3 are not liable to pay any compensation to the complaint.
9. Point No. 3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs directing the complainant not to file this type of vague complaints again.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 7th April, 2011
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent: NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex.A1 Letter issued to the R2 by the complainant, dt.28.06.2010
Ex.A2 Courier receipts
Ex.A3 Letter issued to the R2 by the complainant, dt.06.07.2010
Ex.A4 Letter issued to the R3 by the complainant, dt.14.08.2010
Ex.A5 Postal receipts
Ex.A6 Letter issued to R3 through E-mail, dt.12.08.2010
Ex.A7 Letter received from the servicing centre i.e., S.S. Electronics &
Refrigeration, dt.20.12.2009
Ex.A8 Letter received from the servicing centre i.e., S.S. Electronics &
Refrigeration, dt.20.12.2009
Ex.A9 Three Postal Acknowledgment cards
Ex.A10 Letter received from Videocon Company i.e., R3 through E-mail,
Dt.12.08.2010
Exhibits marked for Respondents: - Nil
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1) P. Sankaraiah,
5/100/C, Near Bus Stand,
Nandalur, Kadapa District.
2) Sri M. Sudhakar Babjee Advocate for R1
3) TekCare India Private Limited,
Videocon Service Centre,
A-23, Road No.1, Naachaaram, I.D.I,
Hyderabad. Ph.No.040-20080941.
4) Videocon Industries Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
14 K.M Stone, Chittegan village, Pythan Taaluk,
Aurangabad District, Maharashtra – 431105
1) Copy was made ready on 2) Copy was dispatched on 3) Copy of delivered to parties
K.U.M.
