Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/392/2013

Shaila Samuel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Viveks Service Centre, - Opp.Party(s)

D.Kumaralingam

13 Nov 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 10.12.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 13.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.392/2013

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

                                 

Shaila Samuel,

W/o. Mr. Ravikumar,

No.82/2, Mayuri Apartments,

T.S. Krishna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 050.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                          ..Versus..

 

M/s. Viveks Service Centre,

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

No.144, Royapettah High Road,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                  ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. D. Kumaralingam & another

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. K.P.C. Mogan

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to replace the Ken Star Micro Wave Oven with a brand new one and to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost to the complainant.

 

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she placed her Kenstar Micro Wave Oven to the opposite party on 29.12.2011 for repair. The complainant further submits that the opposite party after receiving the Kenstar Micro Wave Oven assured that it will be returned duly repaired on 08.01.2012.   But the opposite party has not returned the Kenstar Micro Wave Oven duly repaired even repeated requests and demands till sending legal notice dated:22.08.2014.    The complainant submits that the opposite party sent a reply belatedly on 28.09.2013 with false statement that the complainant himself has not claimed the duly repaired Kenstar Micro Wave Oven for a long time.   The complainant submits that the opposite party sent a Kenstar Micro Wave Oven which was alleged to be duly serviced along with a claim of Rs.2,500/- on 11.10.2013 not belongs to the complainant.  The complainant’s Kenstar Micro Wave Oven model is 20 DGL X while the opposite party attempted to deliver the microwave oven of model No.OM 20 DSP.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.  

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the complainant entrusted Kenstar Micro Wave Oven for service on 29.12.2011.  The complainant has not explained what is the defect or repair in the said machine.  The complainant entrusted the machine at Tambaram of the opposite party.  It was sent to Mylapore Branch for proper repair.   The opposite party states that it is not admitted that the machine would be delivered on 08.01.2012 after due repair or subsequent dates.   The fault was identified by the opposite party and attended the problem of PCB and was set right and kept for delivery.  The complainant did not turn up to take delivery of the Kenstar Micro Wave Oven.   The opposite party states that the allegation of Model returned to the complainant after due repair is unknown is not acceptable.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:-  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the new ‘Kenstar Micro Wave Oven’ as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the Counsels also.    Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant entrusted Kenstar Micro Wave Oven to the opposite party on 29.12.2011 for repair.   The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party after receiving the Kenstar Micro Wave Oven assured that it will be returned duly repaired on 08.01.2012 as per Ex.A1, Job card.   But the opposite party has not returned the Kenstar Micro Wave Oven duly repaired even repeated requests and demands till sending legal notice dated:22.08.2014 as per Ex.A2.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party sent a reply belatedly on 28.09.2013 as per Ex.A3 with vague allegations that the complainant himself has not claimed the duly repaired Kenstar Micro Wave Oven for a long time.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party sent a Kenstar Micro Wave Oven which was alleged to be duly serviced along with a claim of Rs.2,500/- on 11.10.2013 not belongs to the complainant.  The complainant’s Kenstar Micro Wave Oven model is 20 DGL X while the opposite party attempted to deliver the microwave oven of model No.OM 20 DSP proves the deficiency in service.  It is also seen from Ex.A1, Job Card that the complainant entrusted the Kenstar Micro Wave Oven of Model 20 DGL X.  Hence, the complainant filed this case for replacement of new Kenstar Micro Wave Oven with compensation.   

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant entrusted  Kenstar Micro Wave Oven for service on 29.12.2011 is admitted.  The complainant has not explained what is the defect or repair in the said machine.  The complainant entrusted the machine at Tambaram office of the opposite party.  It was sent to Mylapore Branch for proper repair.  Further the contention of the opposite  party is that it is not admitted that the machine would be delivered on 08.01.2012 after due repair or subsequent dates.   The fault was identified by the opposite party and attended the problem of PCB and was set right and kept for delivery.  The complainant did not turn up to take delivery of the Kenstar Micro Wave Oven.   But the opposite party has not produced any document to prove that the said Micro Wave Oven was ready for delivery after due repair.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of Model returned to the complainant after due repair is unknown is not acceptable.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1, the complainant entrusted the Kenstar Micro Wave Oven of Model No.20 DGL X.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall return the Kenstar Micro Wave Oven of Model No.20 DGL X after due repair within one month, failing which, the opposite party shall replace with a brand new one with the same model and pay a compensation  of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The  opposite party is  directed to repair the Ken Star Microwave Oven (Model No.20 DGL X) and hand it over to the complainant within one month, failing which, to replace the said Microwave Oven with a brand new one of the same model and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of November 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of Job Sheet / Invoice
		Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party with acknowledgement
		Copy of reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant
		Copy of rejoinder notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party
		Copy of proof of service of the rejoinder notice

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT