Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/126/2016

C.Mathu soothanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aqua Pura Plus pvt LTD - Opp.Party(s)

D.Ravathy

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  22.07.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  26.04.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY THE 26^th DAY OF APRIL 2018

 

C.C.NO.126/2016

 

 

C.Mathusoothanan,

S/o. Chinnamani,

No.95/26, 2^nd Floor,

United Shelters, Nagappa Garden Lane,

Old Mambalam Road, West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600  033.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

Aqua Pure Plus Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep by its CEO,

16/148, V.V.Koil Street,

Thiruvallishwarar Nagar,

Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 18.08.2016

Counsel for Complainant                       : D.Revathy, B.Ramya

 

Counsel for Opposite Party                     : M/s.Anandakumar & O.P.Kamaraj

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to refund the cost of the product paid by him and also compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a RO Water Purifier manufactured and sold  by the opposite party in the name and style of Aqua Pure Plus on 25.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.9,500/-. The product was installed on the same day the first service was done on within three days from the date of purchased on 29.08.2015 and the second service was done on 05.09.2015. The technician found in the second service that there was a major defect in the adapter; hence a new adapter new membrane and five micron filter were replaced. The purpose of purchase of water purifier was defeated. The third service was done on 12.12.2015 as the adapter is defective and the 4^th service done on 09.03.2016 reported water not coming through inlet from the system. Within 10 days of last service another service was done on 19.03.2016 and however the problem remained the same.

          2. The frequent service done within six months of purchase establishes that the product is having manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant purchased another brand product on 01.04.2016 and the same is running in good condition. Thereafter, the complainant after issuing legal notice to the opposite party that due to defective product suffered with mental agony and filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to refund the cost of the product paid by him and also compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony  with cost of the complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party denies the averment made in the complaint. As per clause (5) of the warranty, the water purifier ‘Adapter’ was not covered and the manufacturing defect raised only with respect to adapter and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. This opposite party rendered good service on all 5 service calls of the complainant i.e on 29.08.2015, 5.09.2015, 12.12.2015, 09.03.2016 and 19.03.2016. Therefore the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and there is no manufacturing defect in the product and the complaint is filed by the complainant with ulterior motive and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased RO Water Purifier under Ex.A1 invoice on 25.08.2015 for a consideration of Rs.9,500/- which was manufactured by the opposite party  and the product was installed on the same day and within three days of the purchase on 29.08.2015 the first service was done as in Ex.A2  and thereafter on 05.09.2015, the second service was done on 05.09.2015 and  the technician found in the second service said that  there was a major defect in the adapter, hence a new adopter, new membrane and five micron filter were replaced and again the  third service was done on 12.12.2015 as the adapter is defective and the 4^th service done on 09.03.2016 reported  as water not coming through inlet from the system and again within 10 days of last service another service was done on 19.03.2016 and Ex.A2 to Ex.A7 are the service reports issued by the opposite party for attending the problem in the products  supplied by them.

          6. The opposite party would contend that as per clause (5) of the warranty condition, the water purifier adapter not covered  under the warranty and hence there is no manufacturing defect in the product and no deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          7. Admittedly frequent services were done through Ex.A2 to Ex.A7 within six months of the purchase of the product. Ex.A1 is the warranty filed by the complainant. The said warranty clause (5) states that ‘Consumables like set of filter cartridges and membrane filter cartridges’ and only for those Consumables warranty does not apply. The adapter which has become defective not dealt in the warranty. Therefore we hold that the warranty is covered for the adapter of the product. Further frequent services immediate to the purchase of the products prove that the product is having manufacturing defect. Even after service for five times the opposite party unable to rectify the defects in the product establishes that the product manufactured and sold to the complainant by the opposite party is having inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore, we hold the complainant has proved that the product sold to the complainant is having manufacturing defect and the opposite party has also not rendered proper service to him and hence it is held that the opposite party committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

 

08. POINT NO:2

          The opposite party sold a defective product to the complainant and therefore the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the product of Rs.9,500/- from the opposite party. Right from the third day of purchase the product is having defect and even after five services, the opposite party unable to rectify the defect caused mental agony to the complainant is accepted and therefore the opposite party can be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.9,500/- (Rupees nine  thousand  and five hundred only) towards the cost of the product to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten  thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said cost of product and compensation amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th day of April 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 25.08.2015                   Copy of the Invoice

Ex.A2 dated 29.08.2015                   Copy of Service Report

Ex.A3 dated 05.09.2015                   Copy of Service Report – new unit replaced

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Copy of Service Report by Arun. G.Nath (No.719)

Ex.A5 dated 12.12.2015                   Copy of Service Report by Srinivasan

Ex.A6 dated 09.03.2016                   Copy of Service Report by Srinivasan

Ex.A7 dated19.03.2016           Copy of Service Report

Ex.A8 dated 01.04.2016                   Copy of the invoice of new RO system

Ex.A8 dated  01.04.2016                  Copy of the invoice of new RO system

Ex.A9 dated 14.05.2016                   Copy of the 1^st Legal Notice sent to opposite party

Ex.A10 dated 22.07.2016                 Copy of the reply mail sent by the opposite party

Ex.A11 dated 18.05.2016                 Copy of the Acknowledgement card

Ex.A12 dated 26.05.2016                 Copy of the 2^nd Legal Notice sent to opposite party

Ex.A13 dated 27.05.2016                 Copy of the Acknowledgement card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      …… NIL …..

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT