Date of Filling : 31.12.2012.
Date of Disposal: 16.02.2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TIRUVARUR.
THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L., …PRESIDENT.
THIRU.R.RAMESH.B.COM.,M.A., …MEMBER-1
TMT.K.SIVASANKARI.B.SC.,M.C.A.,M.Phil., … MEMBER-2
CC.NO.22/2012
DECIDED ON THIS 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015.
P.Anbu,
S/O. Ponnusamy,
Senathikadu.
Vaimedu,
Vedharanyam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
..…Complainant
/Versus/
1.The Proprietor,
Abirami TV Centre,
Thiruthuraipoondi.
2. The General Manager,
South Aquava Cure Water Company Limited,
Chennai.
3. The General Manager,
Eureka Forbes Limited,
Aqua Cure Water Company Limited,
Bangalore. ….Opposite Party
This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 19.02.2015 and on having heard the arguments of Thiru.Mr.Sasikumar,B.A.,B.L., the counsel for the complainant ,the 1st Opposite Party having been set Ex parte the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties having been represented by Ms. G.Bhuvaneswari B.SC.,B.L., counsel for the Opposite Party and having stood for consideration till this day the Forum passed the following.
ORDER
By President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal,B.A.,B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
(1) The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that he purchased Aqua Sure Water Purifier from the 1st opposite party on 19.03.2012 for sum of Rs.10,990/- (Rupees Ten thousand nine hundred and ninety only) and it functioned only for two days and subsequently got repaired and when the first opposite party was complained of not functioning of the machine in person as well as over Telephone and Mobile Phone the 1st opposite party did not take any steps to rectify the defect in the instrument. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the manufacture suppliers of the said purifier. On 29.06.2012, the complainant sent a notice through his lawyer to the opposite parties who have neither sent a reply nor come forward to set right the defective water purifier. It is sheer deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant therefore prays for an order to direct the 1st opposite party to supply a new Aqua Water Purifier to the complainant taking back defective one sold by him and to direct the opposite parties to pay either jointly or severally to the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and also to pay a cost of the litigation and grant such other relief as this Forum would deem fit.
(2)The gist of the written version filed by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties is that the complaint is not maintainable against them is as much as there is no business relationship between the 1st opposite party and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. They are not concerned with the sale of the Aqua Purifier sold by the 1st opposite party to the complainant . It was neither manufactured nor sold by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The brand purchased by the complainant was not supplied by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties.
(3)The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in the complaint and has filed 6 documents which are marked as Ex A1 to A6 the proof affidavit has been filed by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and written arguments are submitted by both the sides.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the oppo
- sites?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief ? If so to what relief?
(4)POINTS:
The complaint has filed Ex A1 the cash bill for purchase of Aqua Water Purifier for Rs.10,990/- (Rupees ten thousand nine hundred and ninety only) from the opposite party on 19.03.2012, and Ex A2 is the warranty card giving one year warranty for that instruments the allegation of the complainant is that the said purifier worked only for 2 days and subsequently became defunct and when complained the 1st opposite party did not take any steps to get it repaired or to replace it with another water purifier and for the notice issued by him through his lawyer to the opposite parties there was no reply from them. Ex A3 is the office copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, Ex A4 and A5 are the Postal acknowledgement copies received by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties respectively and Ex A6 registered and the returned postal envelop sent to the 3rd opposite parties.
(5)The first opposite party has remained Ex parte and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have taken a stand that they have no connection with the 1st opposite party and they are neither the manufactures nor the suppliers of the product sold by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. It is for the 1st opposite party to prove that he had got the product sold to the complainant only from the stockiest the 2nd opposite party at Chennai and is manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. But, the 1st opposite party has remained Ex parte. The 2 opposite party has failed to give a reply the Ex A3 the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer. Ex A2 the manual and the warranty card of the Aqua Sure Purifier reveals that it had been marketed and serviced by Eureka Forbes at Mumbai , whereas , the 3rd opposite party is said to be having office at Bangalore. Therefore, it is not clearly proved whether the opposite parties 2nd and 3rd have any nexus with the product sold by the 1st opposite party. Therefore no deficiency in service could be established against the opposite parties 2nd and 3rd. The 1st opposite party who has sold the Aqua Water Purifier to the complainant has been deficient in service without rectifying the defect in the product sold by him to the complainant or to replace it with a new one.
(6) POINT:2
In the result the complaint is dismissed against the opposite parties 2nd and 3rd and is allowed in part against the 1st opposite party. The First opposite party is directed to provide a new Aqua Sure Water Purifier to the complainant after receiving back the defective purifier sold to him and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the litigation.
The 1st opposite party is directed to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the said compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her and corrected and pronounced by me on this 16th day of February 2015.
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT MEMBER – II
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 Dated 19.03.2012. Cash Bill given by 1st Opposite Party.
Ex.A2 Dated 19.03.2012. Manual with warranty Card given by the 1st
Opposite Party.
Ex. A3 Dated 29.06.2012. Lawyer’s Notice .
Ex. A4 Dated 03.07.2012. Acknowledgement for the above notice received
by 1st Opposite Party.
Ex.A5 Dated 05.07.2012. Acknowledgement for the above notice received
By 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex.A6 Dated 05.07.2012. Notice returned by the 3rd Opposite Party
With Postal Envelope.
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT MEMBER - II
