Delhi

East Delhi

CC/261/2017

ABHISHEK SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

AQUAFRESH R.O. SYSTEM - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 261/17

 

Abhishek Singh

S/o Shri G.M. Singh

R/o 111, South Anarkali Extension

Street No. 1, Delhi – 110 051                                    ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

Aquafresh R.O. System

F-5, Plot No. 10

Manish Link Road, Plaza-2

Near HDFC Bank Sector-5

Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075                                          …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 17.07.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 31.07.2018

Judgement Passed on: 31.07.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Abhishek Singh against Aquafresh R.O. System (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant Abhishek Singh deposited a sum of Rs. 6,500/- with OP on 03.08.2016 for RO+UV+TDS+UF+MC system in the month of October, 2016.  He contacted for the service of said product due to degradation of water quality, however there was no response from their side.  He again contacted the OP in the month of January’2017 which they responded on 01.02.2017 and changed paper candle, but the problem still persisted.

            After many complaints, their technician revisited the site and after inspection, told to the complainant that motor of the system was not working properly and should be replaced.  The UV lamp was replaced by the technician.  Their technician visited and changed the motor head which did not resolve the problem, though increased as his negligence caused a burn in his unit and melted the plastic body and burned down the power adapter.

            After one week, OP again changed power supply adapter, but stated that filter of the said unit were not working properly and should be replaced.  The complainant agreed to this and got the filter changed on 21.04.2017.  The water purifier worked for 20 days without any problem, but again caused problem due to usage of counterfeit parts for service and maintenance.  The complainant tried to contact the OP who sent their technician.  This technician told that the filters were faulty and should be replaced.  This technician was the same who changed the filters first time. 

            The complainant asked OP to send any other technician, but no one has visited the site.  Thus, the complainant have stated that he has suffered mental agony and financial loss as three of the family members were kidney stone patients which were caused due to impure water provided by the said system.  Thus, he has prayed for apology for the negligence and take back the water purifier alongwith compensation for an amount of      Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental agony and suffering as well as            Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

 3.        Notice was issued to OP, however, they did not put the appearance inspite of notice.  Hence, they have been proceeded ex-parte.     

4.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents which were annexed with the complaint.

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the testimony of the complainant coupled with the documentary evidence, it is evident that complainant have purchased a RO+UV+TDS+UF+MC system on 03.08.2016 by paying an amount of Rs. 6,500/- which was under warranty upto 02.08.2017.  The complainant got the carbon filter, sediment filter and membrane on paying a sum of Rs. 1,650/- on 21.04.2017.  Inspite of that, the product under warranty could not be rectified as per the version of the complainant.  Thus, the fact remains that there has been deficiency on the part of OP.  When there has been deficiency on the part of OP, certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and agony. 

            In view of the above, we order that OP shall rectify the defects in the RO system and return the same to the complainant without charging any amount within a period of 2 months with extended warranty of 6 months.  If OP fails to get the defects rectified, they shall refund an amount of Rs. 6,500/-, the cost of the product with 6% interest from the date of complaint.  They are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of compensation which includes the cost of litigation.    

             Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President