BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This  complaint has been filed under section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019  against the OP-1 &2 for non compliance of the order.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:

The complainant has purchased water purifier product under bill no.801 dt.17.08.2021 for Rs.37,000/- from OPs. The complainant has also paid  Rs.4,500/- and Rs.1,500/- towards installation charges by cash.

It is further case of the complainant that, the purifier machine worked for 08 days and from 9^th day purifier machine stopped working. Despite repeated requests Mr.Saravan and Mr.Shaktivelu,  C.E.O  of OP fail to  rectify the problem. The OPs failed to take back the defective unit and failed to pay Rs.50,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3. After receipt of notice, OPs have not appeared  before this commission and they have been placed exparte.  

4. Heard arguments of the  complainant. Perused documents.

5. The following points arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Affirmative

      Point no.2:- Affirmative in part.

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

7. Point Nos.1 and 2: The complainant relies on his affidavit evidence and Ex.P1 to P4 in support of his case. Ex.P1 is calculation sheet dt.08.08.2021, it indicates that 08.08.2021  was the date of installation and cost of the product of Rs.37,000/-. Ex.P2 invoice also indicates that the complainant has purchased Aqua pure plus from the OPs by paying Rs.37,000/-. Even though  the say of complainant about payment of Rs.4,500/- and Rs.1,500/- towards installation  charges in cash is not proved through the receipts, but there is no circumstances to disbelieve the say  of the complainant about payment of additional  Rs.6,000/-  towards  installation  charges. If installation charges of Rs.6,000/- is taken into consideration, the complainant is entitled to Rs.43,000/- and not Rs.50,000/-. The complainant issued Ex.P3 notice to the OPs,  but OPs neither replied nor refunded the amount. Under such circumstance, non-refund of Rs.43,000/- amounts to deficiency of service.  The  complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.43,000/- from the OPs. At the same time, the complainant requires to return Acqua Pure Plus machine to the OPs. Even though the complainant claims Rs.1,000/- per day  as penalty in case of  fail to comply the order within two weeks. When the complainant having proved the deficiency of service  on the OP, the complainant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- as compensation.

8. Point no.3:-.  In view of the discussions referred above, the OPs are liable to refund Rs.43,000/-  and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation. OPs are also liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. The complaint requires to be allowed in part. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OPs shall refund Rs.43,000/-, Pay Rs.5,000/- being compensation and Rs.2,000/- being the cost of litigation  within 15 days from this date.
3. The complainant shall return Aqua Pure Plus  water purifier to the OPs  within 15 days from this date.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties, and return the spare pleadings and documents to the complainant.
5. Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 27^th  day of September, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 : Nil