Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/64/2014

Chinthalapalli Pratapreddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor Sai Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

R.Rajasekhar

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                            Date of filing       :  11-07-2014

                                                            Date of disposal  :  31-07-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Friday, this the  31^st  day of JULY, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

 

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                             

         

                                 C.C.No.64/2014

 

Chinthalapalli Pratap Reddy,

S/o.Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 35 years,

Resident of Yanamalapalem,

Nawabpet, Nellore City,

Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.                            …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1)The Proprietor,

    Sai Agencies,

    Trunk Road, Nellore City, Nellore District.

 

2) M/s.Tekcare India Private Limited ,

    Rep. by its Managing Director,

    15 Km, Stone Aurangabad – Paithan Road,

    Chitegaon Village, Paithan Road Taluka,

    Aurangabad – 431 105, Maharashtra, India.        …         Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on  24-07-2015  before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri  R.Rajasekhar, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties appeared as in-person having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

 

            This consumer case is filed by the complainant against opposite parties 1 and 2 to direct them to pay Rs.62,804/-  (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,804/-+Rs.2,000/-) towards cheating, immense mental agony and deficiency in service and risk of future continuously apprehension and harassment and lack of honour loss of valuable time including the payment of amount of Rs.7,300/- with 24% interest of a total amount of Rs.10,804/- (146 X 24 months = Rs.35,041/- i.e., from 12-07-2012 to 11-07-2014) and legal notice charges; and costs of this complaint and also grant such and further reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may be deemed it fit and proper in the interests of justice.

 

Factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated hereunder:

 

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased the Kelivinator washing machine on 12-07-2012 model KS6812, semi automatic washing machine type for a sum of Rs.7,300/- from 1^st opposite party and also issued a cash voucher on the said date.  He has also submitted that 1^st opposite party is authorized dealer of 2^nd opposite party in Nellore city and the 2^nd opposite party is a manufacturer of Kelvinator electronic goods including washing machine and others.

           The complainant had immediately on the next date of purchase of it used the said machine but the dryer was not functioning in it.  Thereafter, he had brought to notice of the fact to the 1^st opposite party but 1^st opposite party had stated that problem is manufacturing default/defect and so the company i.e., 2^nd opposite party will be responsible to all the defects as the said machine is in warranty period within 2 years.  So, immediately, the complainant had called through 2^nd opposite party’s company on line number as 18008814040 and he had made online complaint on 16-07-2012 and thereafter 2^nd opposite party had registered a complaint which is bearing no.TIR 1607120119 and allotted their engineer named Munna and said message was sent to the complainant’s phone.  Later on, the authorized engineer of the opposite parties had checked the machine and disclosed that it is manufacturing defect and repaired the same on the same day.

2. It is also further submitted by the complainant in paras 4,5,6,7 and 8 of his complaint that within one week the dryer was again not functioning and immediately the complainant had made another complaint through online booking to company toll free number 18008814040 and 2^nd opposite party had registered the complaint bearing No.TIR010 8120145 on 1-08-2012 and opposite parties (they) are allotted their engineer by Md.Jameer and the same information was sent to the complainant’s phone.  Later on, the authorized engineer of opposite parties checked the machine and disclosed that it is a manufacturing defect and repaired the same on 03-8-2012.

             In the same way, the complainant had made complaints to the 2^nd opposite party on 24-08-2012; 18-09-2012; 4-3-2013 and also 28-5-2014, every time the engineers Md.Munna and Md.Riyaz are visited and inspected the washing machine on 29-5-2014 and disclosed that motor and gare of the machine was defect in condition and the parts of machine are replaceable and repaired and on19-06-2014 parts are replaced.  The complainant and his family members are suffered due to defect the washing machine and there is a lot of deficiency in service and negligence of the opposite parties towards the complainant.

( c ) It is also further submitted by the complainant in para-9 of his complaint that he had issued legal notice through his counsel on 2-7-2014 to the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties are not responded inspite of said notices are served on them.  Their aim is to get wrongful gain and cheat the public by supplying defective goods.

(d) There are causes of action to file this consumer case.  The opposite parties are residing within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum.  Finally, the complainant has prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint with costs.

 

II  At first instance, notice was served on opposite parties 1 and 2  on        29-10-2014.  But, Mr.Ramana, Videocon service manager was reported to the Forum that they contacted the complainant and proposed replacement and they are awaiting the reply from him on 17-11-2014.  So, the case was posted subsequently to 8-12-2014.  Since then, the Forum had granted several adjournments inspite of that the opposite parties are absent and noted all the details in the docket sheet of the case.  Even then, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are continuously absent and they did not evince any interest whatsoever and it is posted for orders are reserved on 24-07-2015.

 

III.  The  complainant had filed his chief-affidvit on 5-06-2015 and also the documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A5.  Subsequently, he had also filed his written arguments on 22-07-2015.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not represented their case.

 

IV.  Basing on the material available on record such as complaint, affidavit, documents and written arguments of the complainant, the points that arise for our determination and they are as follows:

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, if it so, to what extent?
3. To what relief?

 

                  V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :  In view of the points 1 and 2 as stated above, their

              inter-dependence of each other for a decision, we have taken up together for

             determination of the case.

 

                  The complainant has through his counsel Sri R.Rajasekhar narrated the                           facts of the case once again and also filed his affidavit evidence in support of his case.  The said learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the allegation of purchase of washing machine by the complainant, Kelvinator on          12-07-2012 from Sai Agencies, Nellore is established and proved through the document Exs.A1; he had also issued a registered legal notice dt.2-7-2014(Exs.A3) to the opposite parties 1 and 2; but they had kept silent after receiving notices and to acknowledge the same postal receipts are herewith filed (Exs.A5).  Mr.Ramana had represented the case on behalf of the opposite parties, but he did not appeared before the Forum later on and the said fact is proved and established.   The said learned counsel for the complainant Sri R.Rajasekhar has also further argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his arguments.  He has also further argued that inspite of several inspections of the engineers of washing machine, even though parts of it replaced, it is not in working condition.  The complainant has suffered a lot of inconvenience and the members of his family are put to much hardship.  There is a deficiency in service and negligence of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  Finally, he has prayed the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint with costs.

 

                            Forum’s findings and observations               

 

          Heard, the said learned counsel for complainant and perused the record very carefully.  He has advanced his arguments orally and brought to our notice the documents and proved his case and established it.

 

         The cost of the washing machine is as stated in the document (Exs.A1) of Rs.7,300/- only.  This consumer case is filed within the period of warranty.  The defect of the washing machine is established and proved.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are never cared inspite of several complaints of the complainant. There is a deficiency in service and negligence of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  The complainant has suffered a lot from the date of purchase of washing machine.  There is no comfort for him and moreover defects are in the machine, is evident from the circumstances and facts of the case.

 

         The proceedings before the Consumer Forum are inquisitorial but not   adversary.  The case of the complainant is to be decided basing upon the equity, justice and good conscience.  There is a substance in the complaint.  We are convinced with the arguments of the said counsel for the complainant.  In view of the existing situation of the case, the complainant is entitled to get the price of the washing machine of Rs.7,300/- the compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony of the complainant and also costs of the litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- payable by the opposite party to the complainant and it will meet the ends of justice.  These two issues are held in favour of complainant, accordingly.

 

 

POINT NO.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.7,300/- (Rupees seven thousand three hundred only) to the complainant, to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation for his mental agony and also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the receipt of order.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 31^st day of July,              2015.    

 

                                              

               Sd/-                                                                             Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

05-06-2015

:

Chinthalapalli Pratap Reddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 35 years, resident of Yanamalapalem, Nawabpet, Nellore City.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

NIL -

                                                                              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

 

Ex.A1	12-07-2012	:	Original receipt of Rs.7,300/- issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A2	-	:	Owner’s Manual issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A3	02-07-2014	:	Office copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties along with two postal receipts.
Ex.A4	02-07-2014	:	Computerized copies of two internet track reports relating to the acknowledgement of the legal notice
Ex.A5	-	:	Two acknowledgement cards

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

• NIL -

 

         Id/-                                                                                          PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri R.Rajasekhar, Advocate, Nellore.

 

2. The Proprietor,   Sai Agencies,

          Trunk Road, Nellore City, Nellore District.

 

    3) M/s.Tekcare India Private Limited ,  Rep. by its Managing Director,

        15 Km, Stone Aurangabad – Paithan Road,

        Chitegaon Village, Paithan Road Taluka,

   Aurangabad – 431 105, Maharashtra, India.  

          

 

Date when order copies are issued: