Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/19/108

P C Issac - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vottan (P)ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

        BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

   SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN               : PRESIDENT

SMT.PREETHA .G.NAIR           : MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                           : MEMBER

CC.NO.108/2019 (Filed on : 20/04/2019)

ORDER DATED : 30/08/2022

COMPLAINANT

P.C.Issac, S/o.M.C.Cheriyan,

Pallickal Bunglow,

MERA – 85, Press Road,

Mannanthala.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695001

 

(By Adv.George M Cherian)

                                                          VS

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Managing Director,

VOLTAS LIMITED,

Voltas House, A Block,

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,

Chinchpoki, Mumbai – 400033

 

2. The General Manager,

Ideal Home Appliances,

Kaithamukku,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695024

(OP2 by Adv.Gayathri  R Krishnan)

ORDER

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR  : MEMBER

1.The complainant purchased a VOLTAS CHEST FREEZER WITH HARD TOP DOOR (HTD) with item code/ description 84183010/VOLTAS CHEST FREEZER 210 LTR MODEL SOFTLOOKCHESTFREEZER on 21^st February 2019 from Kesavadasapuram showroom of the second opposite party against the caseh payment of Rs.19,500/- with an undertaking to deliver it at the residence of the complainant on the same day. In the same evening the second opposite party delivered a chest freezer with glass top instead of the chest freezer with Hard Top, actually purchased by the complainant. The complainant had objected to accept the freezer with glass top but the first opposite party’s delivery/ installation staff tried to convince the complainant that this is expensive than freezer with hard top and ensure the best performance also. Upon installation, it was found the accumulation of water vapour on the glass top and pouring water to the floor after working some time. The same employee ensured that this is the working mechanism of freezer and it will be cured afterwards working continuously for 3-4 hours. The complainant waited till next morning but no effect and for then it was disconnected from the electric socket as the said freezer was not functioning and not suitable for his purpose. The complainant had reported the matter immediately with the showroom over phone several times. The second opposite party deliberately evaded to answer his calls or telling some lame excuses to drag the matter. Then the complainant had visited the showroom personally to solve the issue. The second opposite party sent a technician of voltas to check and rectify the defects if any, of the said freezer after repeated requests by the complainant for more than 15 days and he said it has some major incurable manufacturing defects and it is to be replaced. He had packed the said defective freezer in its original carton itself and ensured the complainant that he will report the real situation to the opposite parties and surely it will be replaced. The poor complainant lose another 20 days more waiting for the replacement but no response from the opposite parties. The complainant was compelled to send legal notices to both opposite parties and they neither respond nor sent any reply to the said legal notice. The first opposite party sent an undated written reply notice as an attempt to drag the matter, to the lawyer through courier. The unbecoming acts of the opposite parties has thus resulted in much mental pain and suffering to the complainant. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for such loss suffered by the complainant. Hence the complaint.

2 The first opposite party filed version stating that the complainant on 21.02.2019, had purchased a VOLTAS CHEST FREEXER WITH HARD TOP DOOR (HTD) from the second opposite party, for an amount of Rs.19,500/-. It was agreed that the item would be delivered to the complainant’s residence on the same day. There are two type of freezer’ manufactured by the first opposite party, the freezer with glass top and freezer with Hard top and that the Freezer with the Glass Top is having higher market value than the Freezer with Hard Top. The second opposite party observing that the Freezer with the Glass Top to be more adequate to meet the requirement of the complainant, opted to deliver to the complainant the Chest Freezer with Glass Top. Since the Chest Freezer with Glass Top is more advance, expensive and suited for his need, the complainant accepted the same without any objection. It is reiterated that the complainant had not raised any issue at the time of delivery or installation and that he had accepted the Freezer on his own violation. The first opposite party stated that during the working of a freezer, there will be a small condensation of water vapour on the top of the freezer and it is normal for any freezer irrespective of it being a hard top or glass top and the same was explained to the complainant at the time of delivery. The technicians further explained to the complainant that the water vapour on the glass top was only as a result of the working of the freezer and the said effect is normal for any freezer. At the time of inspection, it was observed that the freezer was being used by the complainant for storing raw meat. It has been clearly stated brochure and the product menu that the freezer cannot be used for storing raw meat and such usage will adversely affect the function of the freezer. The legal notice dated 27.03.2019 was received by the first opposite party. The opposite party contacted the concerned counsel as well as the complainant to amicably settle any issues as per the terms of the warranty, so as to avoid any unwanted litigations, but the complainant refused to settle the matter for reasons known best to him. The complainant purchased the above said freezer only because of the representation made by the sales staff of the second opposite party that it is worthy and functioning good and having replacement warranty for one is false and hence denied. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party as alleged by the complainant.

3.       The second opposite party filed version that it is true that the complainant purchased Voltas Chest Freezer from the second opposite party. But the first opposite party is the manufacturer of the product and the second opposite party is only a dealer. As per the demand made by the complainant the product was installed by the concerned technicians of the first opposite party and explained the functions of the products. The second opposite party selling the products with good condition. The manufacturer of the company is giving the quality products after testing and confirming the quality of the product. All the functions of the product were explained to the complainant by the technician of the first opposite party. The second opposite party had never broken the promises given to the customers at the time of purchase of the product. The second opposite party is not liable for the manufacturing defect of the product sold by this opposite party as alleged in the complaint. It is only vested with the first opposite party who is the manufacturer of the product. The usual practice is that when one customer informs any complaint this opposite party will inform the same to the manufacture and its service centre. The rest of the liability is with the manufacturer as well as with the service centre of the manufacturer. The complaint is not maintainable and the prayers in the complaint against this opposite party is an experimental one and is not allowable.

4.       Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 to A6 marked. Opposite parties not filed proof affidavit and not produced documents. Complainant filed argument notes.

5.Issues to be considered are :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief and cost?

 

6.Issues I & II

We perused relevant documents on record. The complainant stated that he had purchased the freezer only because of the representation made by the sales staff of second opposite party that is worthy and functioning good and having replacement warranty for one year. But they delivered a wrong item and the freezer is not functioning good condition. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice in the name of complainant for the purchase of freezer for an amount of Rs.19,500/- dated 21/02/2019. Ext.A2 is the legal notice sent to second opposite party. Ext.A5 is the reply notice sent by OP1 to the counsel for of complainant to permit service engineer to visit to enable them to take necessary corrective action. Thereafter the opposite parties had not explained or replaced the freezer. The complainant stated that freezer was not functioning in good condition.

7. The opposite parties not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant. Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. In view of the above discussions, we find that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

          In the result, complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.19,500/- as the price of freezer and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and pay Rs.2500/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization / remittance.  After complying the order the complainant shall hand over the freezer to opposite parties.

                    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

                      Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 30^th day of August 2022.

 

                                                                                     Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN            : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                       Sd/-

PREETHA.G.NAIR        : MEMBER

 

                                                                  Sd/-

VIJU.V.R: MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.108/2019

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                               - P.C.Issac

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.A1                            - Copy of tax invoice

Ext.A2                            - Copy of legal notice

Ext.A3                            - Copy of postal receipt

Ext.A4                            - Copy of acknowledgement

Ext.A5                            - Copy of legal notice

Ext.A6                            - Copy of voltas

List of witness for the opposite party – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite party- NIL

Court Exhibits                                            - NIL

 

 

 

 

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                            PRESIDENT