Karnataka

Kolar

CC/152/2023

ALEX M - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB INDUSTRIES LTD, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 29/12/2023

Date of Order: 30/04/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:30^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:152/2024

Alex. M

S/o Muniswamy,

R/at: Madhushree Nilaya,

Jayanagar 8^th Cross,

Kolar Taluk,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by M. Divyabharathi, Advocate)                   ….Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

IFB INDUSTRIES LIMITED,

16/17 Visveswaraiah Industries Estate,

Opp. Whitefield Road,

Mahadevapura (Post),

Bengaluru (Urban),

Karnataka-56048.

(Rep. by Sri. K.V. Somashekara Reddy, Advocate) ….Opposite Party.                     

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT.SAVITHA AIRANI, LADY MEMBER.,

1. This is the complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OP praying for directions to OP to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for adverse suffering humiliation and embarrassment. 

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant purchased an IFB Oven model 20SC2 on 07/11/2016 from the OP.  The complainant used the above said Oven only for heating food, when complainant tried to use the oven for baking the cake, at that time smoke came from the oven then the complainant called the customer care and said about the problem of the oven.  The customer care person informed the complainant to do service.  Complainant did the service for the above said oven and paid for the same.  After the service, again the problem was occurred; again complainant was not able to bake anything in the oven because oven is not in worthy condition to do so.     

 

3. Further complainant stated that, complainant tried to contact the customer care second time but they did not responded the complainant, then complainant spoke to the dealer for support but there was only negligence from the dealer also. 

 

4. Further complainant stated that, on 21/10/2022 complainant sent a legal notice to OP through online for asking Rs.50,000/- as compensation for their negligence.  The OP sent reply for the legal notice they are ready to give service once again, but the complainant denied the OP’s option. 

 

5. Further complainant stated that, OP offered an option for replacement of oven, but the complainant does not want the same model but complainant requested to replacement with the higher version model i.e 25BC3.  For that OP informed the complainant they are ready to replace with 23BC4 model and complainant has to pay for the exceeding amount.

 

6. Further complainant stated that, he agreed for the same, till the date there is no response from the OP, the OP last respond is that, they are waiting for management approval.  Further complainant stated that, there was no proper respond from OP from day one so complainant do not want any replacement of the above said oven rather than compensation more, to the previous claim for their disrespectful act and for humiliating him.  Hence this complaint.

 

7. Upon admission of complaint and on issuance of notice, OP appeared through his counsel and filed its version. 

 

8. In the version OP admitted that, complainant purchased on 07/11/2016 IBF model 20SC2 oven, the complainant gave legal notice to OP and OP reply to that, they are ready to give service or replace the oven but complainant is not ready to obtain their service.

 

9. The Op contended that, the IFB offered for the replacement of oven, even though there is no obligation to replace the oven but they are ready to give service or replace the oven for the purpose of void further unwanted litigation. But the complainant is not ready to take it, because the complainant has a purpose to illegal gain from the Op, he claiming new model oven.

 

10. Further Op contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and circumstances of the case, because the complainant is not a customer to the Op, there is no relationship between the complainant and Op, he is unknown person, he doesn’t have any right to file any complaint against the Op.

 

11.   Further Op contended that, the complainant himself stated that, he brought the oven machine on 07/11/2016.  The Op is given warranty only one year.  Admittedly warranty period is over in the year 2017 itself; hence the question of deficiency of service does not rise.  Further OP contended that, complainant seeking a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as no basis and said claim is imaginary excessive, hence the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.  Further Op contended that, complaint is barred by limitation and the instant complaint lacks of cause of action.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  Hence complaint is liable to dismiss in limine.

 

12. In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence along with documents.

 

13.  On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

Heard the oral argument of the complainant.

   

1. Whether the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation?
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
4. What Order?

 

We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the evidence placed on record.

Our answers to the above points as under:

Point No. (1):-            In the Affirmative.

Point No. (2) & (3):-    Are in the Negative.

Point No. (4):-             As per the final orders

                                 for the following

                            

 

 

 

      REASONS

14. POINT No.(1):-  On  perusing the pleadings of the parties, the question of limitation come forefront among all other points for consideration and hence this point taken initially for consideration.  That the complainant brought this complaint not within the stipulated time and filed belatedly and beyond the period of limitation.  Further the complainant is also failed to file delay condonation application with suitable affidavit    in support of his complaint to satisfactorily explain the delay in bringing this complaint.  Whereas, on looking into the facts of the complainant, the cause of action accrued to the complainant during the year 2017 only and hence though the complainant not mentioned the exact date of cause of action but as per saying of the complaint it is accrued during the year 2017.  Under the circumstances the law is very is clear and on perusing section 69 C.P. Act 2019 and it reads thus

Section 69:- “(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission, or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case, may be records its reasons for condoning such delay”.

On analyzing the case facts and the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the light of above definition the complainant failed to satisfy this Commission to Condon the delay of 5 years.   Though the complainant got issued the legal notice dated: 21/10/2022, it is noteworthy to mention that, the issuance of legal notice will not extend the time of limitation. 

15)   It is worth to note that, on perusal of the complaint and his affidavit evidence along with documents, it clearly reveals that, the warranty period of above said oven was over in 2017, the oven was bought in 2016 by one Asuntha and the above said problem arose in 2021.  After the warranty period the Op is not liable to any defect arose in the item.   Further the law will not lend its helping hands to those whoever slept over their rights. Viewing from any angle the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) In the Affirmative.

 

16. Point No. (2) & (3):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

17. On perusing of the complaint averments, the IFB Oven model 20SC2 purchased on 07/11/2016 from the OP.  The complainant used the above said Oven only for heating food, when complainant tried to use the oven for baking the cake, at that time from smoke came the oven.  Then the complainant called the customer care and said about the problem of the oven.  The customer care person informed the complainant to do service.  Complainant did the service for the above said oven and paid for the same.  After the service the complainant was not able to bake in the oven because oven is not in worthy condition to do so.

 

18. On 21/10/2022 complainant sent a legal notice to the OP through online for asking Rs.50,000/-as compensation for their negligence.  The OP sent reply for the legal notice they are ready to give service once again, but the complainant denied the OP’s option.  And complainant asked for replacement of the Oven with higher version model i.e 25BC3.   For that OP informed the complainant they replace with 23BC4 model and complainant has to pay for the exceeding amount.  It is the allegation of the complainant that he was agreed for the offer of the same and waited till the date, and further stated that, the OP are waiting for management approval, but there was no proper respond from OP from day one, hence the complainant do not want any replacement of the above said oven and only he ask for compensation from the OP, hence which leads to filing of the present complaint.  

Per contra, that the OP strongly contended that, the above said IFB oven model 20SC2 purchased on 07/11/2016, and their company issued the warranty only one year. Admittedly warranty period is over in the year 2017 itself; hence the question of deficiency of service does not arise. After received the legal notice from the complainant, the Op immediately explained to the complainant that, when using oven for Grill and Convection, first time the smoke and fumes are common and gradually it disappears. 

19. Further, though OP is ready to provide service or replacement of the Oven, even though there is no obligation to replace oven to avoid the unwanted litigation.

 

20. Further OP stated that, complainant is not their customer, there is no relationship between the complainant and OP, so complainant doesn’t have any right to file the complaint.  On perusal of the Tax Invoice the name of the purchaser is that Asuntha and address in the Tax Invoice is chennai, Tamil Nadu.  The complainant in his complaint or affidavit evidence did not said anything about the relationship between the real purchaser and the complainant.  Hence contended that, complainant is not a customer to the OP.
21. On the basis of the foregoing discussion we reached to conclusion that, it is the sheer negligence on the part of the complaint himself and hence deficiency in service on the part of the Op cannot be acceptable one and the complainant miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant not entitled for any kind of relief as sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered Point Nos. (2) & (3) are in the Negative.

 

22.  Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1) to (3) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

 

•  

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

 

  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT