Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/150/2018

Smt. Suman Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aqua Fresh Water Purifier - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	150/2018
Date of Institution	:	08.03.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.09.2018

 

                                       

                                               

Smt.Suman Sharma w/oSh.Pyare Dutt Sharma, r/o H.No.1133, First Floor, Sector 19, Panchkula (Haryana)

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Aqua Fresh Water Purifier situated at # 181-182, Chandigarh –Panchkula Road, New Motor Market Manimajra, Chandigarh -160101 through its Authorized Person.

 

2.     M/s Starrr Enterprises, SCO No.1767 (Opp. Dev Samaj College), Sector 45-B, Chandigarh UT, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Person.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by

Sh.Piyare Dutt Sharma, Authorized Agent of the complainant

                OP No.1 exparte.

                None for OP-2.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Brief facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that she purchased a water purifier make Aqua Fresh from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 26.03.2017 for Rs.6500/-, which was valid upto one year.  She paid the price of the water purifier in cash as well as through four cheques.  After one month of its installation, the water purifier started giving trouble in working and taste of the filtered water was not good and it was as normal water and, therefore, she informed OP No.2 regarding the defects.  She also got  replaced the candle of the water purifier as advised by the technician by paying a sum of Rs.200/-.  However, after replacement of the candle, the water purifier did not work properly and the taste of the water remained as was of previous.  She made oral as well as telephonic calls to OP No.2 to get the things right qua the water purifier but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint
2.         In its written statement, OP No.2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the water purifier purchased was in working  condition when it was installed at her residence and the same was acknowledged by the complainant at the time of its installation.  It has been pleaded that the life of the candle of any water purifier is 4-6 months and, therefore, OP No.2 following the best business practices timely informed the complainant regarding the replacement of the candle and duly changed the same in time.  It has been pleaded that the statement of the complainant regarding the water purifier giving trouble within one month of installation alognwith dispensing water of poor quality is a false story having no footing.  The Annexures attached by the complainant as evidence of candle being replaced after six months of installation of water purifier proves that the same was in good working condition.  It was denied that the complainant was making repeated calls for giving the complete service and rather it was OP No.2 who reminded her for first service of the water purifier on 23.08.2017, the date on which the candle was replaced. It has been pleaded that the consumable i.e. filters and membrane does not covered under the warranty. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.2 controverting its stand and reiterating her own.
4.         OP No.1 did not appear despite publication in the newspaper Chardikalan”” and as such it was ordered to be proceeded against vide order dated 28.08.2018.
5.         We have heard Sh.Piyare Dutt Sharma authorized agent of the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         It is apt to mention that during the pendency of the complaint, the case was adjourned for amicable settlement between the parties and as per the directions of the Forum, the water purifier in question was also repaired by OP No.2.   However at the time of arguments, the authorized agent of the complainant has stated that the water purifier is still giving the foul smell and the same is not functioning properly.  
7.         Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the pleadings of the parties, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted because the water purifier is still giving the foul smell and is not functioning properly despite its repairs by the OPs. It was the responsibility of the OPs to set right the defect in the water purifier within the warranty period. The complainant has already given longer hands to the OPs to rectify the defect but to no effect.  We, thus, deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case that no useful purpose would be served by directing the OPs to repair the product in question because the consumer has lost faith in that company’s product. If the repaired product develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because she had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous for her.    Failure of the OPs to set right the water purifier within the warranty period itself amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
8.         It is relevant to mention here that OP No.1 did not prefer to contest the case despite due service through proclamation by way of publication in the newspaper “Daily Chardikalan”.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under;-

1. To refund Rs.6,500/- i.e. price of the product in question to the complainant. 
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses.

10.         The OPs can collect the product in question from the premises of the complainant after payment of the awarded amount. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides litigation costs.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10/09/2018

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER