Complaint presented on  :  26.11.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  11.03.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

FRIDAY  THE  11^th   DAY OF MARCH 2016

C.C.NO.226/2013

Mrs. M.Jayachitra,

W/O G. Murugesan,

No.F-7 AP Anuditha,

New No.61/1, V.O.C. Nagar,

2^nd main Road,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.

                                                                             ..... Complainant

..Vs..

Date of complaint                                  : 02.12.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      :M/S. K.Paramasivam

Counsel for 1st Opposite party               :M/S V.Narendiran

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                     : M/S. Siva Suyambu

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

     The Complainant purchased a Micro Wave Oven on 01.01.2013 from the 2^nd Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The said product was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party. The warranty is for a period of one year from 09.01.2013 to 08.01.2014. At the instance of the representatives of the IFB products the Complainant purchased a voltage regulator at a cost of Rs.1,200/- to safeguard the Micro wave oven. The said product failed to work within a month and the Complainant informed to the representatives of the 1^st Opposite Party to rectify the defects or replace it as it was under the warranty period. The Complainant also booked a Complaint with the customer care of the 1^st Opposite Party through phone. After that one representative came and removed micro wave coil and assured to replace it with a new one. However no one came and hence she sent an e-mail on 26.07.2013 to the 1^st Opposite Party. The product is kept ideal with defect and the 1^st Opposite Party technician failed to rectify the defects. Hence the Complainant issued the legal notice to the Opposite Parties and no reply issued by them. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for refund of the cost of the product and also for compensation for mental agony with litigation expenses.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          As soon as the Complainant reported the  alleged defect, immediately this Opposite Party replaced the Micro wave coil and even after that she-reported the same problem. The representatives of this Opposite Party approached the Complainant and serviced the product. This Opposite Party to please the Complainant sent a new micro wave machine   to replace with old one and however the Complainant refused to hand over the old machine and hence due to the conduct of the Complainant the new micro wave machine was taken back. Hence the Complainant has no equity to maintain this Complaint. The Opposite Parties was willing to replace the Complainant machine with a new one and hence the Complaint is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This Opposite Party admits that the Complainant purchased a micro oven from him on 01.01.2013.  At the time of purchase this Opposite Party informed the Complainant that if any manufacturing defect in the product, he has to approach the 1^st Opposite Party/ Manufacturer. As such this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

4.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

5.POINT:1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant purchased a Micro Wave Oven for  consideration with one year warranty from the 2^nd Opposite Party for her domestic use under Ex.A1 receipt and he also purchased a voltage regulator for a sum of Rs.1200/- under Ex.A2 and within one month of purchase the Complainant reported to the 1^st Opposite Party that there is a defect in  the product and the 1^st Opposite Party men also attended the issue and removed the micro wave coil and even after that the product is not functioning and thereafter the Complainant sent Ex.A4 e-mail and Ex.A5 legal notice  and thereafter filed this Complaint.

          6. The 2^nd Opposite Party is only a dealer and hence he has not committed any Deficiency in Service. The 1^st Opposite Party technician even after attending the defect the same was not rectified fully and hence the 1^st Opposite Party offered to replace with a new Micro Wave Oven. Failure to rectify the defects and also offered to replace with a new product proves that, the product is having defect and hence, it is held that the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

7. POINT:2

          After attending first time defect, the 1^st Opposite Party offered to replace with new product and however the Complainant refused to hand over the old product. This was pleaded in the written version of the 1^st Opposite Party. When it was offered to replace the old one with  a new product, naturally the old product has to be handed over to the person who replaces it.  The fact of replacement of new product was pleaded in the written version of the 1^st Opposite Party at the earliest stage about within two months of the Complaint taken on file.  The Complainant filed proof affidavit after two months of the filing of the written version of the 1^st Opposite Party.  The fact of replacement of the product offered by the 1^st Opposite Party on 26.12.2013 was not denied in the proof affidavit filed by the Complainant. Hence it is accepted that the 1st Opposite Party offered replacement of the product as early on 26.12.2013. Therefore, the act of the Complainant that her refusal to hand over the old product and refused to accept   the new product is not justified. 

          8.  The Complainant wanted the relief in the Complaint to refund the cost of the product of Rs.11,200/- . However during arguments the 1^st Opposite Party offered  to replace with new product and not willing to refund the cost of the product. The Complaint itself filed to refund the cost of the product and hence it would be appropriate to order the refund of the cost of the  product only justified. However, the cost of the product is only Rs.10,000/-.  Though the Complainant purchased a voltage regulator for a sum of Rs.1,200/- the Complainant has not alleged any defect in the voltage regulator and hence as such the  refund of the cost of the voltage regulator is not justified. Hence the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the  Micro Wave Oven.

9.  The 1^st Opposite Party even before filing the Complaint he has dispatched a new micro wave oven machine to the Complainant on 26.12.2013         and the same was refused only by the Complainant and therefore in the circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses would meet ends of  justice.  Since the 1^st Opposite Party offered to replace the product early, before filing of the Complaint, the Complainant suffered with mental agony is not accepted and she is not entitled for compensation for mental agony. The Complaint in respect of the 2^nd Opposite Party is liable to be dismissed. While at the time of refunding the cost of the product of Rs.10,000/- the Complainant shall handover the old Micro Wave Oven to the 1^st Opposite Party.  The Complainant is entitled for reliefs as indicated above.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards cost of the product to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses.  The above   amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.   The Complaint in respect of the 2^nd Opposite Party is dismissed.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th  day of March 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated  01.01.2013                  Receipt No.12612012101790

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Invoice – cum – Receipt No.014 from Royal

                                                     Enterprises     

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Warrant Card customer copy

Ex.A4 dated 26.07.2013                   Letter through e-mail to 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A5 dated 07.08.2013                   Legal Notice to the Opposite Parties along with

                                                 Acknowledgement cards

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                      …… NIL ……

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT