Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/278/2018

EUREKA FORBES LTD, REGD oFFICE AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

V. Devika, W/o Varadharajan - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi

27 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :      Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                           PRESIDENT

                   Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                           MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.278/2018

(Against order in CC.NO.108/2012 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

 

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

1.       Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

          Regd. Office

          No.7, Chakraberiya Road (South)

          Kolkata- 700 025

 

2.       Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

          Sales Office, Ground Floor                        M/s. K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi

          New No.M-73, Old No.M-1                                      Counsel for

          Third Avenue, Chennai - 102                       Appellants / opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

V. Devika

W/o. Varadharajan                                                   M/s. N. Sampath

No.7/4, Lalakutty Street                                                Counsel for

Periamet, Chennai – 600 003                                  Respondent/ Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.8.8.2016 in CC.No.108/2012.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on13.12.2022, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.         This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ opposite parties as against the order passed by the District Commission, Chennai (North) in CC.No.108/2012 dt.8.8.2016, by allowing the complaint. 

2.       For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.

 

 3.      The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

The complainant had purchased an Euro Clean WD Wet and dry Vacuum cleaner item code No.GF CD AL NWD 10000 and Sl.No.1011203317081626 and Invoice No.1031100317 Order No.103044791 on 28.4.2011 for a sum of Rs.9990/-.  The 2^nd opposite party’s sales agent has delivered the vacuum cleaner to the complainant.  But he had not sent any person for demonstration of the unit purchased by the complainant, inspite of several requests.  When the complainant tried to use the vacuum cleaner, in the very beginning itself, it has not functioned properly.  Therefore, he made a complaint about the defect, and asked the opposite party to depute a person for demonstration and to attend the defect if any in the vacuum cleaner.  Persuant to his request the agent of the 2^nd opposite party came to the house of the complainant and inspected the machine.  When he tried to operate the vacuum cleaner as per instruction, he could not operate it properly.  Therefore, he informed the complainant that the vacuum cleaner is a defective one.  Hence, the complainant asked the 2^nd opposite party to replace the vacuum cleaner with a new one.  The 2^nd opposite party though promised, had not replaced the same.  In this regard, the complainant has made several calls to the 2^nd opposite party, but there was no response.  Therefore, the complainant sent a letter dated 7.11.2011 to the agent of the 2^nd opposite party to replace the vacuum cleaner, but they have failed to do so.  The warranty period is for one year from the date of purchase.  Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to replace the vacuum cleaner.  Accordingly, after issuing legal notice on 31.3.2012, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the vacuum cleaner or to pay Rs.9990/- alongwith interest @24% p.a., and to pay Rs.70000/- towards compensation for damages and Rs.30000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony.

 

4.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties as follows:

          The opposite parties are the leading company in manufacturing and marketing the extensive products, which are very much essential in daily life like Water purifiers, vacuum cleaners, air purifiers etc. for domestic and industrial purposes.  The complainant purchased Euro Clean WD Wet and Dry vacuum cleaner item code No.GF CD AL NWD 10000 vide invoice No.1031100317 order No.103044791 on 28.4.2011 for a sum of Rs.9990/-.  It is unacceptable that the vacuum cleaner was not working properly from the day one, and that there was continuous problem in the machine.  The complainant had used the product, without following the procedure given in the user manual.  The complainant was advised to follow the instruction given in the user manual for the best usage.  If there is any lapse in the procedure followed by the complainant, then the opposite parties cannot be held liable.  The complainant had not stated any specific allegation with regard to the condition of the vacuum cleaner, except stating that it was not working from the day one of its purchase.   The product supplied to the complainant is subject to wear and tear as a consequence some problems may occur by the usage of the customer.  The allegations of the complainant are all invented stories.  Absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant is trying to enrich unduly.  Thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.       In support of the contention, proof affidavits were filed by the parties, alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A4.  There were no documents filed on the side of the opposite parties. 

 

6.       After careful consideration, the District Commission had come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no proof had been filed by the opposite party to show that they have attended the problems.  Thus holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, had allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the vacuum cleaner @Rs.9990/- alongwith compensation of Rs.20000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. 

 

7.       Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully gone through the materials placed on record.

 

8.       The specific case of the complainant is that he had purchased the Vacuum cleaner from the opposite party on 28.4.2011.  Right from day one, the vacuum cleaner was not functioning properly.  In this regard they have lodged a complaint to the opposite party, and the agent of the opposite party also came and inspected the vacuum cleaner, and informed that the product is a defective one, thereafter nothing was heard from the opposite parties.  In this regard letter was sent to the 2^nd opposite party on 7.11.2011 and a legal notice was also caused on 31.3.2012.  But there was no response from the opposite parties. 

 

9.       Per contra, the Appellants/ opposite parties have stated that the complainant would have not followed the instructions given in the user manual properly.  The complainant had also not proved that there is defect in the machine.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

10.     Having considered the submissions, we feel that except vague denial of the complaint, the opposite parties have not produced any tangible evidence to show that they have attended the complaints properly, and that there was no defect in the machine purchased by the complainant.  Furthermore it is a common knowledge that it is totally unnecessary for the complainant to raise allegations, and ask for the replacement of new vacuum cleaner, unless there is a continuous problem in the machine.  Therefore, as was rightly held by the District Commission, it is clear that the opposite parties have not taken any steps to rectify the defects in the vacuum cleaner or to replace the same, even after receiving complaints and legal notice.  Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 

 

10.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North), in CC.No.108/2012 dt.8.8.2016.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     R. SUBBIAH

                      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT