Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/148/2021

Dr.V.Ganesan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aqua Pure Plus Pvt.Ltd The Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Veda law firm

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :29.10.2021         

Date of disposal             :30.09.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT:  THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                     TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                           : MEMBER-1

                               THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA    : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.148/2021

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 30^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

Dr. V.Ganesan,

S/o. Mr.R.Visvanathan,

Kalpatharu, Plot 2, 1^st street,

Raj Nagar, Thuraipakkam,

Chennai-600 097.                                                            .. Complainant.                                

..Vs..

 

Aqua Pure Plus Pvt. Ltd.,

The Managing Director,

No.6/813, D Sector, 9^th street,

Park Road,

Anna Nagar West Extension,

Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 101.

                                                                   ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                : M/s. Ved Law Firm, A.Smrithi and

                                                                   N.Vasanth Kumar

 

Counsel for  opposite party                : Ex-parte

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.  : PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to directing the Opposite party to repay the complainant the entire sum of Rs.35000/-  paid by complainant towards the product value as per the invoice, along with plumbing materials and service and cleaning charges of Aqua guard reverse osmosis plant together with appropriate interest of 10.25% till date and to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, loss paid and suffering by complainant from the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant stated that he had purchased component (Water Purifier) 2 nos of 3M filters from the opposite party company on 04.12.2017.  The complainant states that on 20.11.2017 the opposite party representative Mr. Ashok kumar had approached the complainant and assured that the product of the opposite party will solve all sediment and scale problems and it will give pure water which was expected by the complainant and based on such representation the complainant agreed to purchase the same.  Further it is stated that the sale representative suggested bio green labs for testing the well water to finalise the type of filter to be fixed which will provide permanent solution in respect of sediment.  Believing such version purchased the component with 3M filters for Rs.29,000/- and further spent a total sum of Rs.35,000/- for installation including the plumbing material charges and cleaning charges.  It is further alleged that the said 3M filters of the opposite party was fixed in addition to two other filters which were already installed by the complainant.  But to his shock within two months in Feb 2018 the two 3M filters installed by the opposite party does not show any improvement and the overhead tank and taps and water purifier appliances were damaged due to dark coloured sediments and on 22.02.2018 one of the staff came and cleaned the filters but again the same problem occurred hence on 21.05.2018  the complainant sent a complaint to the opposite party along with the photographs and on 28.05.2018 the representative of opposite party inspected the tank and collected the water and later the complainant found that the 3M filters of the opposite party did not even withstand for a lifetime of 2 -3 months because of inferior quality and in efficient sediment filter and further stated that the opposite party have cheated the complainant giving false representation that their filers will solve the water sediment problem and further stated that the stain water problem solved when the metal pipes were replaced with PVC pipe and thereafter he was getting clean water without any sediment filter and hence understood that the opposite party acted negligently and not able to identify or diagnose the underlying problem and without any proper technical investigation the opposite party mis lead and insisted and installing their filters which amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and therefore prayed for repayment of Rs.35000/- towards the products and for compensation.

2. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainant had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.12 were marked on his side.The opposite party was set Ex-parte.

 

 

3. Point No.1:-

          The complainant had purchased component water purifier 2 no’s of 3M filters with warranty from the opposite party on 04.12.2017.  Before purchase on 20.11.2017 the sales representative of the opposite party approached the complainant and assured that the product of the opposite party will solve all sediment and scale problems and it will give pure water which was expected by the complainant and based on such representation the complainant agreed to purchase the same.  Further it is stated that the sale representative suggested bio green labs for testing the well water to finalise the type of filter to be fixed which will provide permanent solution in respect of sediment.  Believing such version purchased the component with 3M filters for Rs.29,000/- and further spent a total sum of Rs.35,000/- for installation including the plumbing material charges and cleaning charges.  It is further alleged that the said 3M filters of the opposite party was fixed in addition to two other filters which were already installed by the complainant.  But to his shock within two months in Feb 2018 the two 3M filters installed by the opposite party does not show any improvement and the overhead tank and taps and water purifier appliances were damaged due to dark coloured sediments and on 22.02.2018 one of the staff came and cleaned the filters but again the same problem occurred hence on 21.05.2018  the complainant sent a complaint to the opposite party along with the photographs and on 28.05.2018 the representative of opposite party inspected the tank and collected the water and later the complainant found that the 3M filters of the opposite party did not even withstand for a lifetime of 2 -3 months because of inferior quality and in efficient sediment filter and further stated that the opposite party have cheated the complainant giving false representation that their filers will solve the water sediment problem and further stated that the stain water problem solved when the metal pipes were replaced with PVC pipe and thereafter he was getting clean water without any sediment filter and hence understood that the opposite party acted negligently and not able to identify or diagnose the underlying problem and without any proper technical investigation the opposite party mis lead and insisted and installing their filters which amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and therefore prayed for repayment of Rs.35000/- towards the products and for compensation.

4. It is found from Ex.A2 that the complainant has purchased the component with 3M filters from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.29,000/- on 04.12.2017 the analysis report of Bio green lab services is marked as Ex.A3.  Ex.A3 stated 22.11.2017 before installation of the filters by the opposite party.  Ex.A4 is a letter by the complainant to the opposite party requesting to remove the filters and refund the amount since the filters were not working properly along with photographs attached showing his overhead tank with dust deposited in two months.  The E-mails correspondences between the complainant and opposite party which were marked as Ex.A8 will go to show that that the technician who have visited the complainant side has not identify the real cause for the impurity of water but on the other hand wrongly suggested for cleaning the cartridges and replacement of filters.  It is found from Ex.A7 that the complainant has filed the photo images of the filters which were installed by the opposite party.  It is found from one of the photos at page.35 darked sediments in the main tank even after water being filtered by the opposite party, in the reply which is marked as Ex.A12, the opposite party admitted that the product sold is covered under one year warranty and further stated the product is not for drinking water purpose but for other utility purpose and further stated that the hardness of the water has to be tested every three months and the 3M filters used is one of the best filters in the market and further stated that the warranty will be covered for damages manufacturing defects and leakages in the product.  It is found from the document filed by both the parties that the component of the opposite party with 3M filters which was installed on 04.12.2017 was not working properly and has not given expected result as assured by the representative of the opposite party and it is further found that even after fixing 3M filters which according to the opposite party is one of the best filters in the market there were still sediments in the water tank of the complainant as found from the photographs which will go to prove that the component fixed by the opposite party is off substandard quality which is not able to give water free from sediment and dust as expected by the complainant and as assured by the opposite party. As per the definition of the word ‘deficiency’ any shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained or undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes acts of negligence or omission or commission by such person.  In the present case the opposite party without properly analysing the underline problem which was able to be solved by the complainant by mere replacement of iron pipe which laid 20 years back with new PVC pipe as found from the photographs filed by the complainant the opposite party has mis lead the complainant by giving false representation that their product will solve the problem of the complainant and thereby the opposite party in order to sell their product by giving false representation and assurances which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

5. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party as stated above, the complainant was made to spent unnecessarily by purchasing the component of opposite party for Rs.29,000/- by which the complainant was put to hardship and loss and he was not able to achieve desired result by fixing the unit.  Hence the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.29,000/-  from the opposite party, though the complainant has spent Rs.35,000/-  towards installation including the plumbing charges and cleaning charges there is no documentary proof for those charges.  Since, the complainant has put to hardship and mental agony due to the act of the opposite party the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for mental agony and loss and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

               In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is  directed to pay a sum of Rs.29,000/- being the cost of the product to the complainant and also Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation for hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant and also Rs.5000/- towards cost of this complaint. The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment. 

Dictated  by President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30^th day of September 2022.

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	28.11.2017	Quotation given by Aqua Pure Plus ltd.,
Ex.A2	04.12.2017	Invoice of Opposite party.
Ex.A3	22.11.2017	Analysis report.
Ex.A4	21.05.2018	Letter sent to opposite party by the complainant with acknowledgement receipt..
Ex.A5	14.06.2018	Service report no.011120.
Ex.A6		Water testing lab report.
Ex.A7		Photo image/CD of the filters installed.
Ex.A8		Email/SMS correspondence.
Ex.A9	23.11.2018	Legal notice-refused
Ex.A10	19.03.2020	Legal notice left.
Ex.A11	22.03.2021	Legal notice with delivery receipt.
Ex.A12	15.04.2021	Reply notice given by the opposite party.

 

MEMER – I                           MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT