Date of Filing: 09.09.2019
Date of Order:26.07.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
HON’BLE Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Monday the 26th day, of July 2021
C.C.No. 454 of 2019
Between
S.Bala Krishna Rao S/o S.Dayakar Rao,
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Retd Employee,
R/o: 336, D-Class, CIB Quarters,
Nehru Nagar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
….Complainant
And
1. The Managing Director,
Pai International Electricians Ltd.
Local office 1-6-44/1, Muthyam Reddy Estate – 2,
Yadamma Nagar, Kanajiguda, Secunderabad,
Hyderabad – 13.
2.The Manager,
Pai International Electricians Ltd.
H.No. 2-2-58 to 60, Prashanthi Arcade,
Ramanthapur Main Road, Amberpet,
Hyderabad – 12. ….Opposite Parties No.1 & 2
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.P.Pallavi
Counsel for the Opposite parties No.1&2 :Sri.D.Vijendra Kishore
O R D E R
(By Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER on behalf of the bench)
1. The above complainant has been filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in relation to purchase of Air cooler from the Op.2 as such, praying the District Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of Air cooler i.e. Rs.15,000/-, award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- and such other reliefs as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of the complainant are that the complainant has purchased, on 8.5.2019, an Air Cooler Storm from the opposite party No. It is alleged that right from the date of its purchase, it has been giving problems as a result of its nonfunctioning. Even the person sent by the OP.2 could not rectify it properly. Despite of his umpteen personal visits and requests, the said product could not be made functioning properly. Even the legal notice dated 28.5.2019 could get neither reply nor any rectification of the problem relating to the said product. Having vexed with the attitude of the Ops and having no other alternative, the above complaint is stated to be filed before the District Forum praying the District Forum to grant reliefs as stated supra.
3. The Opposite Parties got filed their Written version stating that they are only sellers of the products complying the specifications provided by the Manufacturers. They are neither the manufacturers nor authorized agent.
4. The company, Symphony air Cooler of the product sold in question, without being arrayed in the present complaint, the alleged problem in the product sold. The complainant is required to prove the problem in the product. On receipt of the complaint and having informed the Air cooler company whose authorized service agents are stated to have attended the problem in the product and who is stated to have informed that there was no problem in the product in question. Admitted the purchase of cooler and its cost, attending the problems in the product in question by the authorized agents of the company, who are stated to have given the report of “no defect” in the product in question. They are only the sellers of various products of different companies. Denied the malfunction of the product but admitted the attending the product by the authorized service agents of the Symphony Company. Issuance of above legal notice is admitted. Sated that the claim of compensation of Rs.1.0 lakhs is on false ground. Stated that in the invoice issued by them contain: Goods once sold shall not be taken back or exchanged. Denied negligence on their part rather he authorized service gents attended many times and rectified the problem. Denying the allegations made in the complaint, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. During the course of enquiry, the complainant has got filed his Affidavit of Evidence supported by Ex.A.1 and A.2. The Opposite Parties also got filed their Affidavit of Evidence not supported by any documents. As far as filing of written arguments are concerned, on the ground of ‘no representation’, it was marked as treated no written arguments on behalf of complainant and while doing so, memo filed by Ops requesting to treat their Affidavit of evidence as “written arguments has been considered. Both sides made their respective oral submissions.
Heard the learned counsel for the Complainants and for Opposite Parties as well. Perused the material on record. For arrival of just and proper conclusion, the following questions are required to be determined.
5.1 whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice on the part of the Opposite Parties ?
5.2 Whether the complainant is entitled to any releifs as prayed
for “ If so, to what extent ?
Answers to the above points:
5.1 Both invoice dated 8.5.2019 and legal notice dated 28.5.2019 have been admitted by the Opposite parties. Responding to the above and requests of the complaint it is also admitted that the authorized service agents of the Company of the product attended the alleged problems in the product in question. It is also stated that the said agents attended the problem again, from which it can be inferred that the problems did arise again. There is a possibility of the arising problems or nonfunctioning of the product. The Opposite parties failed to prove that the said alleged problems in product were rectified and it was functioning well, the fact of which was not proved by the opposite parties and no affidavit of the said engineers nor any document showing that the said product was/has been functioning was produced. Mere statements in the written version and subsequent affidavit of evidence, without any supporting documents, do not hold evidentiary value. Selling products with defects, though branded, casts liability on the sellers ( here opposite parties ) for the same. Either the alleged problems need to be rectified or it should be replaced. The Opposite parties simply arranged to get the alleged problems in the product in question got stated rectification of the product by the service agents of the company concerned. They cannot shirk their responsibility on the words of the service agents. In the absence of any proof of rectification of the alleged problem in the product in question on the part of the Opposite parities, considering the problems faced by the complainant, we hold that there is a deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and they are liable for the same and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as granted infra.
5.2 Based on our above discussion and findings, the OPs 1 &2 are directed, jointly or severally, to-do the following :
i. to pay to the complaint the cost the product i.e. Rs.15,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its purchase till its realization. The Ops 1 & 2 are directed to collect the product, in any condition, from the residence of the complainant subsequent to making payment as ordered above and the complainant is directed to return the same.
ii. to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony etc.,
iii. to pay Rs.10,000/- for costs of litigation.
Time for compliance: 45 days from the date of receipt of this order in default the above granted amounts, except costs, shall attract interest @12% p.a.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this the 26th day of July, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 – Copy of Invoice dt. 08.05.2019
Ex.A2 – Copy of Legal notice along with Regd.Post ack.due dt. 28.05.2019.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite party :
Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
