LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
T.C.L. India Holdings COMPLAINT NO.538/09
DATED THIS THE 4th November 2009
PRESENT
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT
SRI. GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainant:
K. Sundaraganesan
No.419, 7th Main Road
ISRO Layout
Bangalore-560 078
V/s
Opposite Parties:
M/s. TCL
50, Maya Electronics
CMH Road
Indiranagar
Bangalore-560 038
(As per order dated 10/06/2009 Op is deleted)
1. T.C.L. India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
Shyam Arcade, No.144
Nagadevanahalli
Next to Arunodaya Law College
Kengeri Hobli
Bangalore-560 056
2. T.C.L. India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
Marwah Centre-3rd Floor
Kishan Lal Marwah Marg
Andheri East, Mumbai-400 072
O R D E R
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:
The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that he had purchased a washing machine on 10/03/2007 with two years warranty for Rs.9,000/-. That washing machine purchased by him was mal functioning very often in this regard he made complaints to the service centre, the service engineer attended the fault and at the first instance he made note that water outlet pipe is mutilated. On the next occasion when he visited the complaint on 04/12/2008 he made a note that washing machine pressure sensor and the circuit board needs to be replaced. Then he also conveyed some message to the service centre. Now the washing machine is totally out of order therefore he got about six complaints registered but the Op have not responded and thereby prayed for reimbursing of the cost of the washing machine.
The complainant at the first instance had presented this complaint against one Op i.e. M/s TCL Maya Electronics, No.50, at Indiranagar. Subsequently, he filed an amendment application for including two more parties and that application was allowed by permitting the complainant to add the parties as intended by him. At that stage, he has made M/s. TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., situated at Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore and another OP M/s. TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Marwah Centre, Mumbai.
Notice sent to Op No. 1 and 2 were duly served through RPAD but remained absent. Hence are set ex-parte.
In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. In the affidavit evidence also he has narrated the material facts in repetitions of what he has averred in the complaint. In the affidavit evidence he has further stated that by over sight and bonafide he has made out two respondents in the application and it is not intentional one, as both the Ops are the main dealers of the company and therefore he got deleted the Op who is at Mumbai. The complainant through his submission on 10/06/2009 also got the first Op who is from Indiranagar, Bangalore deleted and thereby the complainant now confined against M/s. TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk who has remained absent after service.
On perusal of the complaint and affidavit evidence of the complainant it is highly impossible to know against whom he has attributed deficiency and from whom he sought for redressal of his grievance. That is to say the complainant neither in the complaint nor in the affidavit evidence as said from whom he purchased the washing machine who is its manufacturer and the service centre of the manufacturer for effecting repairs. Of course at one stage he has stated he after filing complaint about the mal functioning of the washing machine he got the washing machine repaired twice but not whispered who is that service engineer who attended the repairs whether he had come on behalf of manufacturer or dealer. That service engineer is also not made as a party. Though he has further stated in the complaint that after washing machine became dead totally he has registered six complaints but has not said with whom the complaint were registered. Therefore, it is not possible from the contentions of the complainant to point either to the manufacturer, dealer or the service provider and to seek redressal of his grievance.
As stated by us above, M/s. TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., situated at Kengeri, Bangalore is placed ex-parte but the complainant has not said anything against this party whether it is a manufacturing unit or that he was the dealer who sold the washing machine to the complainant or it is a service provider in the form of effecting repairs to the washing machine. Though we find that the complainant claim to have suffered deficiency of service in not making the washing machine functional but because of lack of required materials to know as to who is deficient we are not able to point to any of the parties regarding deficiency and to direct them to compensate the complainant has prayed for. When the complainant has not made any allegation against M/s. TCL India Holdings Private Ltd., Kengeir we cannot hold him liable to compensate the loss to the complainant by way of refund of cost of the washing machine. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant in our view is bereft of material particulars to fashion the liability on the first Op who is placed ex-parte. With the result, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed.
Submit Complaint..
