Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/18/1480

Parashiva Murthy T.A - Complainant(s)

Versus

Videocon Industries Ltd(Kenstar) - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Oct 2019

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DIST.CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
8TH FLOOR,BWSSB BLDG.
K.G.ROAD,BANGALORE
560 009
 
Complaint Case No. CC/18/1480
( Date of Filing : 14 Dec 2018 )
 
1. Parashiva Murthy T.A
No.46, Manjusha, 1st Main Road, 3rd Cross, Sai Meadows Layout, Kudlu, Bangalore-560068.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Videocon Industries Ltd(Kenstar)
No.62,3rd Floor,(above PF Office), 1st Main Road, 3rd Cross,2nd Stage,Yeshwanthpur Industrial Area, Bangalore-560022.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHANKARA GOWDA L. PATIL PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Shantha P.K. MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 19 Oct 2019
Final Order / Judgement

Complaint Filed on:01.09.2018

Disposed On:19.10.2019

                                                                              

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 

 

 

    19th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

 

PRESENT:-

SRI. S.L PATIL

PRESIDENT

 

SMT. P.K SHANTHA

MEMBER


                          

                      

COMPLAINT No.1480/2018

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.T.A.Parashiva Murthy Aged about 43 years,

No.46, Manjusha,

1st Main Road, 3rd Cross,

Sai Meadows Layout,

Kudlu, Bengaluru-68.

 

By Adv.Sri.Chandrashekaraiah.S.B

 

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

 

Videocon Industries Ltd., (Kenstar)

No.62, 3rd Floor

(Above PF Office)

1st Main Road, 3rd Cross,

2nd Sage, Yeshwanthpur Industrial Area,

Yeshwanthpur

Bengaluru-22.

 

Ex-parte

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

 

The Complainant filed the present complaint on 01.09.18 and it was before the 3rd Addl., DCDRF, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the present complaint taken for hearing before this forum on 14.12.18 as per the letter No.PÀgÁD/DqÀ½vÀ/36/2016, ¢:13.12.18 of Hon'ble State Commission.

 

The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to refund the entire purchase amount of Rs.26,568/- with cost of Rs.10,000/-.                                            

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

 

The Complainant submits that, on 03.10.16, he had purchased “4 nos Brand New of Kenstar Geysers (Kenstar 25L KGS25W6P Jacuzzi Geyser)” from Snapdeal. Each piece has ‘2 years on site guarantee on coil and 5 years on tank. The Complainant installed the same at his house for 4 toilets. Within a month of purchase, 2 of the geysers started leaking, in one of them the coil was defective. The service technician rectified the same. Again the said geysers and also 3rd and 4th geyser developed the same issue. It was also rectified by the technician. But the problem not solved, all the 4 geysers are leaking though rectified/repaired periodically and consistently. The said fact brought in to the notice of service team through calls and emails insisting for replacement of all the 4 geysers. Thereafter, they replaced with 2 brand new geysers. Later sent one equivalent and other inferior model. The Complainant sent back the inferior model and insisted for equivalent. Even the brand new geysers replaced have started leaking and also has stopped functioning/heating. All repeated reminders/calls went in vain. Hence this complaint.

 

3. Inspite of notice served on OP, it did not appear before this forum. Hence placed exparte.

 

4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents. The Complainant also filed written arguments. Heard. We have gone through the available materials on record.

 

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

 

  1. Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?

 

  1. What order?

 

 

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2:- As per final order

 

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS

 

 

7. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint. In the instant case, though notice served on OP, it did not appear. Hence placed exparte. When OP did not appear to oppose the claim by way of filing the version, under such circumstances, the presumption can be raised that, claim of the Complainant is true and correct as per the decision reported in 2018(1) CPR 325 (NC) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance ltd., vs. Dr.Nishi Gupta, wherein it is held as under:

 

“non-filing of the written version amounts to admission of allegations made by the Complainant in the consumer complaint”.

 

8. Anyhow, for just disposal of this case, we placed reliance on the contents of the complaint with reference to the documents produced by the Complainant. On going through the contents of Ex-A1/Invoice, it is evident that, the Complainant has purchased “4 nos Brand New of Kenstar Geysers (Kenstar 25L KGS25W6P Geyser)” and paid Rs.6,642/- per geyser totaling to Rs.26,568/-. According to the case of the Complainant, all the said 4 geysers found leaking/non-functioning as stated in para 1 to 5 of the complaint. Amongst 4 geysers, some of them have replaced. Those are also found to be non-functioning. To deny all these facts, OP did not appear. Under such circumstances, this forum has no other go except to believe the version of the Complainant in respect of the defects that was found in the said geysers.

 

9. The Hon'ble National Commission in catena of the decisions, repeatedly held that, only the defect parts is to be replaced. In the instant case, geysers are the small units and found to be non-functioning. Under such circumstances, this forum has no other go except to direct the OP to replace the defective parts found in the said 4 geysers free of cost, if not, to replace the entire 4 geysers with the similar new geysers, if not, to refund the entire 4 invoice/Ex-A1 amount of Rs.26,568/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly we answered point no.1 partly in the affirmative.

 

          10. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

              

 

 

 

 

  O R D E R

 

 

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.

 

2. The OP is directed to replace the defective parts found in the said four geysers free of cost, if not, to replace the entire 4 geysers with the similar new geysers, if not, to refund the entire (4 invoice/Ex-A1) amount of Rs.26,568/- to the Complainant.

 

3. OP is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

 

4. This order to be complied by OP within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to have the redress as per law.

 

 

 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

   

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 19th day of October 2019)

 

 

 

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant dated.28.08.19

 

Sri.T.A.Parashivamurthy

 

Copies of Documents produced by the Complainant:

 

 

Annex.A1

Invoice dtd.03.10.16

Annex.A2

Warranty

Annex.A3

Emails

Annex.A4

Messages

Annex.A5 & A6

Emails

Annex.A7

Photograph of geyser

 

 

 

 

 

            MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHANKARA GOWDA L. PATIL]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Shantha P.K.]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.