Date of filing: 13-4-2017 Date of order : 05-9-2017
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
Tuesday, 5th day of September 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 20 / 2017
M. Padma, age 38 years, W/o S. Siva Kumar,
D.No. 1-34, Yerramukkapalle, Kadapa. ………… Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Proprietor, Bombay Electronics, #19/211,
Gokul Complex, Madras Road, Kadapa.
2. The Manager, Symphony Limited, Symphony House,
FP-12-TP50 Bodakev, OFF SG Highway,
Ahmedabad – 380054, Gujarat State, India. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 30-8-2017 in the presence of Complainant as in person and Opposite parties are also appeared in persons and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per 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 of Rs. 16,490/- towards cost of the air cooler or replace with a new one at same cost, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant purchased Symphony Touch 110 Air Cooler from O.P.1 for Rs. 16,490/- on 1-3-2017 under original bill issued by O.P.1. O.P.1 is the manufacturer of the cooler. The Complainant used cooler for five days after purchase. To her surprise the cooler was not able to provide cool air. She complained to the dealer about the same. The dealer gave Symphony online complaint number to log a complaint. She complained and they have given service request No. TI-NG6C 17004 on 6-3-2017. They sent a mechanic for checking of the cooler. After checking the mechanic said the floor of the house is somewhat slanting, hence, the cooler is not able to wet the mats and kept a wooden plank under one side of cooler. Even, after that the mats are getting wet but the cooler was not at all giving cool breeze. The Complainant experienced swetting and their children are getting suffocated and they are not able to sleep properly in the nights. Again they complained on 5-4-2017 and called upon the dealer, who directed to contact mechanic by name Nagendra. When contacted Nagendra told he is not able to get air keeping the cooler outside and he is not able to do anything in the matter. The dealer directed me to contact Symphony company dealer. The Complainant lodged a complaint to Symphony management via E-mail. Again they sent a mechanic, who told the cooler itself having such capacity only in cooling. In advertisement it is stated the cooler will make surroundings upto 5000 feet cool but it is not able to cool their small hall. The Complainant approached Symphony authorized dealer at Tirupati they have also not properly responded. Hence, the complaint for the above relies.
3. Opposite party No. 2 filed written version and the same has been adopted by O.P.12 by filing memo. Opposite parties denied the allegations in the complaint regarding air cooler not giving cooling and they have not properly responded causing mental agony etc., facts and called upon the Complainant to prove all of them. But the Opposite parties have admitted the purchase of air cooler model touch 110 by the Complainant on 1-3-2017 as pleaded with warranty.
4. It is further averred that the cooler purchased by the Complainant is a pioneer branded one and the company is a famous one since 1998 and doing business in all Consumer appliances by marketing the same. As per warranty the technical person has explained and advised the operating system, when Complainant informed that cooler is not working properly and the Complainant has endorsed the services are satisfactory. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties as pleaded by the Complainant?
- Whether the complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. On behalf of Complainant Exs. A1 to A4 documents are marked and on behalf of the Opposite parties Ex. B1 is marked.
7. Heard arguments on both sides.
8. Point Nos. I & II. It is contended by the Complainant that within five days after purchase of the cooler on 01-3-2017 the cooler was not properly worked and cool breeze was not coming at all. In spite of reported to both Opposite parties the defect was not rectified on one pretext or other and caused mental agony to the Complainant. Therefore, both the Opposite parties are in deficiency in service in supplying the defective product of cooler. Therefore, they are liable to replace the cooler with new one or refund the amount of its cost.
9. On the other hand the Opposite parties contended that the Symphony company is reputed one and when the Complainant informed about the defect they rectified the same still the Complainant filed this complaint on false grounds and no deficiency in service or manufacturing defect in the product. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. In this case there is no dispute about the Complainant purchasing Air Cooler on 01-3-2017 manufactured by O.P.2 from O.P.1 for Rs. 16,490/- under Ex. A1 bill. Ex. A2 is the service request intimation online dt. 6-3-2017 and 5-4-2017. Ex. A3 is the air cooler broacher issued by O.P.2. Ex. A4 is the warranty card shows there is 12 months warranty with the Symphony cooler purchased by the Complainant.
11. A perusal of Ex. A2 clearly goes to show the Complainant informed about the defect and not getting cooling from the cooler on 6-3-2017 and the company directed the Complainant to give service request to Nagendra. So unless the cooler of Complainant had not worked properly and cool breeze was not coming to the satisfaction of the Complainant, there was no necessity to him to give online complaint as advised by O.P.1. Even after O.P.2 service provider Nagendra, who come and checked the cooler, he expressed his inability stating that the capacity of cooler is such that regarding cooling. So he cannot do anything more. According to company broacher Ex. A3 there are so many features including cooling of room upto 142m3 / 5000 feet 3. But actually the cooler purchased by the Complainant under Ex. A1 did not have that much capacity to cool the room. Therefore the Complainant complained to the Opposite parties as it has warranty of 12 months and got checked by the Opposite parties authorized person but the defects were not rectified by the Opposite parties in getting cool breeze from cooler for which purpose it was purchased by the Complainant. So it must be unhesitatingly held that the cooler supplied to the Complainant is defective one by the Opposite parties and in that way the Opposite parties are deficiency in service towards Complainant and they have caused mental agony by supplying such defective cooler, which was not giving proper cool breeze to the Complainant to her satisfaction. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 & 2 and Complainant is entitled for reliefs. Accordingly, points I & II are answered in favour of the Complainant.
12. Point No. III In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite parties 1 & 2 to replace with a new one Symphony touch 110 Air Cooler in place of old one supplied to the Complainant under Ex. A1 bill and shall also jointly and severally to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Complainant shall return Symphony touch 110 Air Cooler purchased by her under Ex. A1 bill to O.P.1 under proper acknowledgement in the mean while.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 5th day of September 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 Original Bill for Rs.16,490/- dated 1-3-2017.
Ex: A2 On line call log messages received by sms dated 6-3-2017 and 5-4-2017.
Ex: A3 Company brochure indicating the features of Symphony Touch Cooler.
Ex: A4 Warranty Card.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties : -
Ex:B1 Authorization letter given to Mr. P. Subbarayudu by the O.P.no.2.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- M. Padma, age 38 years, W/o S. Siva Kumar,
D.No. 1-34, Yerramukkapalle, Kadapa.
- The Proprietor, Bombay Electronics, #19/211, Gokul Complex, Madras Road, Kadapa.
- The Manager, Symphony Limited, Symphony House,
FP-12-TP50 Bodakev, OFF SG Highway, Ahmedabad – 380054,
Gujarat State, India
B.V.P
