This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 24-11-14 in the presence of Sri M. Mallikarjuna Rao, advocate for complainant and Sri M.P. Bhimeswar, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for negligence in rendering improper services by the opposite party; Rs.5,000/- as costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these: 

          The complainant on 26-04-12 purchased Voltas Air Conditioner; LG TV (LCD); Samsung Washing Machine; Keeline Stabilizer; one wooden cot and sofa set for Rs.92,500/- from the shop of the opposite party.   Prior to purchase the opposite party informed the complainant that all the above goods belonged to “Next Company” which is an international brand company.   The opposite party further informed that his shop will provide best services in fixing the above appliances.   Without issuing any bills the opposite party delivered the above goods at complainant’s house at her expenses.   The opposite party after repeated requests sent two private mechanics namely Gopireddy and Koteswara Reddy and they fixed the Air conditioner and washing machine.   After fixation, the Air conditioner and washing machines did not function properly.   The opposite party gave bills forty days after its purchase.   When questioned, the opposite party gave evasive reply.   The complainant on 16-07-12 wrote a letter to the manager of M/s Next Company, Vijayawada.  The Manager of Next Company informed that they cancelled distribution of the opposite party shop in respect of sales of Next Company goods.    Inspite of that the opposite party continued to give wide publicity in his own style misrepresenting and cheating the public in general.   The complainant gave a police report about the said incident to higher officials and none of them took any action.   The opposite party on 29-09-12 sent two persons namely Chandra and Lakshmi to complainant’s house and asked her to withdraw the report given to the police.   The complainant on          04-10-12 gave report in Tenali I Town police station.  The opposite party got high influence in politics and police department. Taking advantage of that the opposite party used to threaten the complainant in different ways.   The articles purchased by the complainant are not useful to her.   The complainant suffered great loss both mentally, physically and financially due to negligence and failure in rendering services by the opposite party.   The complainant estimated the same at Rs.2,00,000/-.   The above conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service.   The complaint therefore may be allowed.

3.  The contention of the opposite party in brief is thus:-

        The complaint is bad for not making manufacturer of the subject goods as a party to the complaint.  The complaint was silent regarding relationship of the opposite party with M/s Jyothi Furniture and Electricals.   M/s Next Company is not a manufacturer of any home appliances or any electrical goods but is an intermediate company dealing between manufacturers and retailers by taking margin money.   A purchaser believes in brand value and guarantee given by manufacturers but not of retailers.  The complainant therefore believed M/s Voltas, Samsung and LG Company only.  The companies like Samsung, LG, and Voltas are maintaining qualified technicians to fix home appliances on sale.   No technician other than the men deputed by such companies can install home appliances.   There is no need to the opposite party to send his personal technician to install home appliances.  If home appliances did not work properly the complainant has every right to file complaint against its manufacturer on whose guarantee those articles were purchased.   Even now the opposite party is dealer of M/s Next Company.   The documents filed by the complainant are not bills but are estimation papers.   The complainant filed CC 252 of 2013 u/ss 420 and 506 IPC on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tenali on the same set of facts and therefore the present complaint is barred u/s 300 Cr.P.C.   The complainant at the time of obtaining home appliances showed many articles to get free of cost by showing her police power.   The complainant obtained the goods on credit and still has to pay amount towards the said articles.   The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service.   The complaint therefore may be dismissed.

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-34 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 on behalf of complainant and opposite party were marked. 

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

        1.   Whether the complaint is bad for not adding manufacturer

                as a party?

        2.  Whether the complainant purchased the disputed articles                      from the opposite party?

        3.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in                           service?

        4.  Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

        5.  To what relief?

6.      POINT NO.1:-   The complainant in para 3 of his complaint mentioned the following:

          “It is humbly submits that the complainant purchased (1) Voltas A/c (2) L.G. L.C.D. Television (3) Samsung Washing Machine (4) Keeline Stabilizer (5) One wooden cot and (6) Sofa Set, for a worth of Rs.92,500/- by way of cash from the shop of the opposite party on 26-04-2012 respectively”.

7.     The complainant reiterated the same in her evidence affidavit. The above averments revealed that the complainant purchased air conditioner, television, washing machine and the stabilizer said to have been manufactured by M/s Voltas, LG and Samsung but not of                         M/s Next Company.   The above averments are in conflict with the averments mentioned in para 4 of the complaint. No doubt a purchaser believes in the warranty given by a manufacturer for its products but not on the warranty of a retailer. At the same time a consumer / customer selects a retailer / dealer who guarantees service/repair during / after warranty period basing on reputation of that particular dealer / retailer.    Any retailer/dealer  is an agent of manufacturer.   Under those circumstances the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is bad for not adding manufacturer is devoid of merit.   We therefore answer this point against the opposite party.

8.      POINT NO.2:-     The opposite party in para 9 of his  version mentioned that the complainant obtained the goods on credit and still has to pay balance of amount towards the said articles.   Ex.A-13 is invoice dated 26-04-12 given by M/s Jyothi Furniture and Electronics.  Ex.A-14 is estimate given by M/s Jyothi Furniture and Electronics. 

9.   Contrary to the above averments, the opposite party filed Ex.B-1 and B-2 i.e., copies of audit reports u/s 44 AB of IT Act, 1961.   As seen from Ex.B-1 and B-2 one Y. Ravikanth was the proprietor of                  M/s Jyothi Furniture and Electronics, Tenali and one Y. Krishna Kanth was the proprietor of M/s Jyothi Digital World, Tenali.   In view of the specific averments made by the opposite party in para 9 of its version Ex.B-1 and B-2 will no way help him.   Even though the complainant has to pay some amount towards sale of the disputed goods still is a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.   The averments made by opposite party in para 9 clearly established that the complainant purchased goods from the concern of the opposite party.   In view of the above discussion, we answer this point against the opposite party.           

10.    POINT NO.3:-   The complainant in para 4 of her complaint narrated deficiency in service as detailed infra:

          “Prior to its purchase, the opposite party informed the complainant that all the goods are belongs to “Next” company which is a International Brand Company.  The opposite party also informed that his shop will provide all best services in fixing all the electrical goods, having warranty period etc.,   But, contrary to it, after purchase of the above said goods by the complainant from the opposite party, immediately no bills were issued by the opposite party.   Simply, the opposite party received cash of Rs.92,500/- from the complainant and delivered the goods to the house of the complainant, with her expenses”.    

11.   The above averments were diametrically opposite to averments made in para 3 of complaint.   No prudent person will keep quite in case of delay in installation of the purchased products/appliances.   The complainant for the reasons best known to her kept quite for a considerable period.   The said conduct of the complainant is not like that of an ordinary prudent person.  The complainant did not file affidavits of the persons referred to her in the complaint to prove her allegation.   The complainant also did not take any steps to prove that the opposite party supplied misbranded/substandard goods.   The complainant gave a report against the opposite party in Tenali II               town PS. The relief sought by the complainant in this case has nothing to do with the result of CC 252/13. The contention of the opposite party about the applicability of section 300 Cr.P.C is therefore devoid of merit.   The complainant gave so many reports to the Government Department but not to the manufacturers of articles regarding conduct of the opposite party.   Ex.A-3 revealed that there was a dispute regarding payment of consideration between the complainant and opposite party in respect of the above articles. The opposite party relied on Ex-B3 letter dated 28-02-12 said to have been written by the complainant to establish the differences between him and the complainant. Ex-B3 cannot be relied as it was not referred to in the version by the opposite party. It is not the case of the complainant that she approached the opposite party or service centre to attend to repairs of the subject articles.   The complainant miserably failed in establishing the deficiency in service said to have been committed/practiced by the opposite party by adducing cogent and convincing evidence.   Therefore we answer this point against the complainant.

12.  POINT No.4:-   In view of the above findings, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation much less the amount claimed.   We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

13.  POINT No.5:-     In view of the above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed.  Under the circumstances no costs.

          Typed to my dictation, transcribed by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 28^th day of November, 2014.

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party :-

     PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.