Date of filing: 28-6-2017 Date of Order :1-11-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE 1st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 50 / 2017
Smt. J. Hamsaveni, Age 66 years,
D. No. W-23-307, Ramarajupalli (V & P),
Kadapa-516 003. … Complainant.
Vs.
- The Manager, SLN Electronics,
D.No.19/196, Madras Road,
Kadapa-516 001.
- The Manager, WIM Plast Ltd.,
H.No. Cello House, Corporate Avenue,
-
Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063. India. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 26-10-2017 in the presence of Complainant in person and Opposite party no.1 appeared as in person and Sri I. Jayaraju, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite party no.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs. 12,000/- the cost of Cooler, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows; The Complainant purchased Cello Air Cooler Model IGLOO PLUS, Serial No. 0112416100624 on 10-3-2017 from opposite party no.1 under invoice No.108 and on the same day it was installed. It functioned normally for four days, later gave trouble. Complainant informed the same to O.P.no.1 but they did not attend. One week later O.P.no.1 sent one mechanic and he opened the cooler and tried to rectify the defect, but he did not succeed. Again the complainant complained to Opposite Partyno.1 who said that he would send the senior mechanic but did not send. Finally Opposite Party no.1 advised to get the cooler to the shop for repairs, so the complainant handed over the cooler to O.P.no.1 on 2-5-2017 but Opposite Party no.1 not repaired the cooler and not returned the same though there is warranty for the cooler for one year from the date of its purchase. The complainant purchased the cooler during summer. She under gone cataract operation for both eyes the right eye was infected. She was taking treatment because of overheat during summer her eye was infected and she spent Rs.100,000/- for treatment. She suffered both physically and mentally due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The cooler is still with the O.P.no.2. Hence the complaint for above reliefs.
3) O.P.s 1 & 2 filed separate written versions/Counters.
O.P.no.1 filed counter/Written Version denying allegations of complainant regarding deficiency of service causing mental and physical agony medical expenses and mechanic not visiting the complainant etc facts. But admitted purchase of Cello Air Cooler model IGLOO PLUS on 10-3-2017 under invoice No.108 from him and it has warranty of one year. It is further averred that on intimation about not working the cooler company authorized mechanic attended the cooler and rectified the problem but again complained the problem and one Rama Rao for the convenient of complainant get the cooler directly to the shop of O.P.No.1 and handed over the same. The O.P.no.1 gave another cooler and the same has been used by complainant. The O.P.no.1 informed about the return of the cooler by the complainant to the distributor and requested to take necessary action and technicians found that there is defect in spare part and requested 10 to 12 days to rectify the problem on 22-6-2017. But on 6-7-2017 the company technician reported that spare part is not available to replace the cooler with another one and on 17-7-2017 the O.P.no.1 requested the complainant to take new cooler but complainant not agreed to take the cooler as she filed complaint in forum. Hence no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.no.1 and he is not liable for any company defective product and compensate it. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4) O.P.no.2 also filed Written Version in similar lines of O.P.no.1 and further contended that O.P.no.1 has done his good job beyond his responsibility and taken much care to the complainant so also O.P.no.2 also taken much care and responsibility to satisfy the complainant. There is no willful negligence on the part of the company and we are always ready to replace with new cooler for the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5) No oral evidence has been let in by the parties but on behalf of the complainant her affidavit is filed and got marked as Ex. A1 to Ex.A6, On behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of O.P.no.1 filed and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 are marked. Heard arguments on both sides and considered written arguments filed by O.P.no.2 adopted by O.P.no.1. The points that arises for determination are;
- Whether is there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties no.1 and 2 as pleaded by complainant ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs if so what
extent ?
iii) To what relief ?
6) Point No.1 and 2 :- It is contended by the complainant that within 5 days after purchase the cooler purchased under Ex. A1 invoice not functioned and the trouble was identified by the technician of o.P.no.1 and not replaced the cooler with new one though agreed to replace it. Thus caused much mental agony apart from physical strain and O.Ps also admitted the non function of cooler supplied to the complainant. Therefore the complainant proved deficiency in service. Hence complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.
7) O.P.s 1 and 2 contended that no deficiency on their part and they were ready to replace the cooler, but the complainant refused claiming huge amount, and even now they are ready to replace the cooler with new one. Hence complaint may dismissed with that direction.
8) There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant purchased the Air Cooler Model IGLOO PLUS of Cello from O.P.no.1 on 10-3-2017 for Rs.12,000/- under Ex.A1 invoice and it has one year warranty as per Ex.A2. The only contention of complainant is that due to non attending the problem of air cooler arise within 5 days of its purchase the same caused much agony and caused Eye infection to her due to hot summer, so she is entitled for refund of the cooler cost apart from the claims of mental agony and medical expenses. But a perusal of Ex. A3 to Ex.A6 does not disclose that the complainant incurred expenditure Rs.1,00,000/- towards eye problem and it cannot be said that due to non functioning of cooler properly, the complainant sustained eye problem and incurred expenditure. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to the said claim and O.P.s are not liable to pay the same.
9) As far as refund of cooler cost is concerned as seen from the contentions of O.Ps they are ready to replace the cooler with new one as the spare part of cooler purchased by complainant was not available but complainant refused to take the same as she filed complaint in this Forum.
10) As per the written arguments filed by the O.P.s they are ready to replace the cooler with new one. Since the O.Ps are ready to replace the cooler with new one with warranty refund of amount cannot be made in this case. Therefore in view of the circumstances much discussion is not necessary in this case to order replacement of new cooler in place of old one purchased by complainant with warranty and awarding some amount for mental agony and costs. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered.
11) Point No.3 :- In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to replace Cello Air Cooler Model No. IGLOO PLUS purchased by complainant under Ex.A1 on 10-3-2017 with new cooler of the same model with fresh warranty from the date of its replacement to the complainant, and shall also pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to the complainant. The rest of the claim of the complainant is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 1st day of November, 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For complainant : NIL For opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex: A1:- purchase voucher dated 10-3-2017 for Rs.12,000/- issued by
O.P.no.1.
Ex: A2:- Warranty registration card for one year issued by 1st O.P.
Ex: A3:- medical prescription dated 5-3-2017 issued by Dr. S. Radhika,
Sri Krishna Eye Care and Oculoplasty Hospital, Tirupathi.
Ex: A4:- Medical record issued by Care plus Hospitals, Tpt. Regarding
cataract operation.
Ex: A5:- Prescription dated 30-8-2017 issued by Zahid Eye Hospital,
kadapa.
Ex: A6:- Patient Flow Chart dated 6-9-2017 issued by Sankara Nethralaya,
Chennai.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties: -
Ex:B1:- Copy of Service visit details, Dt. 16-5-2017.
Ex:B2:- Copy of online service call slip, Dt. 16-5-2017.
Ex:B3:- Copy of online service visit details, Dt. 16-5-2017.
Ex:B4:- Original Kadapa Service Call slip, Dt. 16-5-2017.
Ex:B5:- Original Trade Visit Report, Dt. 22-6-2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to
1) Smt. J. Hamsaveni, D.No. W-23-307,
Ramarajupalli ( V & P)Kadapa-516 003.
2) The Manager, SLN Electronics,
D.No.19/196, Madras Road,Kadapa- 001.
3) Sri I. Jayaraju, Advocate, Kadapa.
& & &
P. R.
