Punjab

Faridkot

CC/22/149

Balram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arsh Enterprises and another - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Kaur

12 Aug 2024

ORDER

  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  FARIDKOT

      Complaint No. :           149 of 2022

      Date of Institution :       20.09.2022

       Date of Decision :         12.08.2024

Balram Singh aged about 45 years, son of Joga Singh, resident of Near Atarsar Gurudwara Sahib Ji, Village Madhak, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.                                                                              .....Complainant

Versus

 

1. Arsh Enterprises, Gupta Market, Mehna Chowk, Bathinda-151001 through its Prop./Authorized Signatory.
2. KENT RO SYSTEM Ltd. E-6, 7 & 8, Sector-59, Noida, UP-201309, India, through its Authorized Signatory.

......OPs

Complaint under Section  35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Quorum:    Sh Rakesh Kumar Singla, President.

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Ms Amandeep Kaur, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

 Sh Sandeep Handa, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

* * * * * * * * *

 

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, President)

ORDER

                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  against OPs seeking

cc-149 of 2022

directions to OPs to refund Rs.60,000/- i.e the cost price of RO alongwith Rs.14,700/-paid to OPs on 29.04.2022 and for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP-1 that RO Systems of Kent are very good having no complaint from any customer, complainant purchased one 11039 Kent Autosoft Automatic Water Softener from OP-1 on 20.01.2019 vide bill no. 073 for Rs.60,000/- and it was installed by the mechanic of OPs at his residence, but after some months of purchase, it started giving trouble to complainant and did not work properly. Complainant duly informed about this to OP-1, but he did not bother about his complaint and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. After that complainant made online complaint to OPs about this on 18.07.2021 and on his complaint, technician of OPs visited his house, who after checking the said RO told that some parts of RO were defective and required to be changed.  Said technician asked complainant to pay Rs.14,700/-for changing the parts but despite receipt of Rs.14,700/-from complainant through online mode on 29.04.2022, OPs neither removed the defect nor changed any part in said RO system. Complainant again made complaint regarding this to OPs on 27.05.2022, but all in vain. Complainant again made complaint to OPs on 05.07.2022 and then, technician of OPs visited his premises and told that there was some major defect in said RO which is not repairable.

cc-149 of 2022

Thereafter, complainant made several requests to OPs to repair the said RO but OPs did not bother to hear his genuine requests and failed to redress his grievance. Complainant has suffered huge harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and for litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                              The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.09.2022, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                               On receipt of notice issued by this Commission, proprietor of OP-1 appeared in the Commission in person and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on their part, but admitted before the Commission that product in question was sold by him to complainant. It is sternly denied that complainant is their consumer. It is averred that product in question was delivered to complainant as it was received from OP-2. Moreover, complainant neither made any complaint regarding alleged defect to answering OP nor ever visited them in this regard. Further averred that answering OP has no role in making any repair of said

cc-149 of 2022

product and it is the duty of OP-2/manufacturer to repair the said RO and liability to make repairs or to provide guarantee/warranty is on manufacturer of said product. It is sternly denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                    OP-2 filed written statement through counsel, wherein took preliminary objections that complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has filed the present complaint on false, frivolous and vexatious grounds. It is averred that complainant purchased the said product on 20.01.2019, got installed the same on 22.01.2019. Warranty of manufacturer expires on 21.01.2020 and present complaint is filed by complainant after expiry of more than two years and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Further averred that complainant purchased the said product from OP-1 and answering OP is stranger to the interaction between complainant and OP-1. It is admitted before the Commission that on 29.04.2022, complainant paid Rs.14,700/-for service charges/spare parts changes because product was beyond warranty period. Moreover, complainant never approached answering OP for redressal of his grievance. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

cc-149 of 2022

6                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1/A, bill dated 20.01.2019 Ex C-1, document showing complaints made to OP on 18.07.2021, 27.05.2022 and 05.07.2022 Ex C-2,  payment transaction receipt Ex C-3, documents Ex C-4 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                               To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Deepak Kumar, Proprietor of Arsh Enterprises as Ex OP-1/1 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Despite availing sufficient opportunities, OP-2 did not tender any evidence, therefore vide order dated 01.11.2023, evidence of OP-2 was closed by order.

8                                              We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

9                                                 From the careful and thorough perusal of evidence and documents placed on record, it is observed that grievance of the complainant is that he purchased Kent Automatic Water Softner from OPs against proper bill, which does not work properly and has caused trouble to him. On complaint made by complainant, OPs sent their technician, who checked the said RO. Said technician said that some parts of RO were defective.  The technician changed the requisite parts and

cc-149 of 2022

charged Rs.14,700/-for changing the parts but despite receiving Rs.14,700/-from complainant, he could not provide effective services and defect was not removed.  Thereafter, complainant made several complaints and requests to OPs to repair the said RO but OPs did not bother to pay any heed to his genuine requests and all his efforts to get repaired the said RO went futile. OPs did not bother to redress his grievance. It is admitted fact and also well proved through bill  which is Ex C-1 that complainant purchased said RO from OPs and there is also no denial on the part of OP-2 that they charged Rs.14,700/-from complainant for changing some parts of RO on the ground that it was beyond warranty period.

10                                                               There is no doubt that complainant has suffered harassment at the hands of OPs as despite several e-mails and requests, OPs did not remove the defect from said water softer and could not make it worthy to function smoothly for the purpose, for which it was purchased by complainant by spending huge amount of Rs.60,000/-from them. Though the warranty period has expired, but a product is not purchased only for one year or two years, rather it is purchased for about more than ten years to make life convenient. Moreover, liability of company does not end with expiry of warranty period,  rather big purchases are made for making several years of life convenient. And if after spending huge amount of Rs.60,000/-on RO sold by OPs, complainant could not get benefit of same for even two years, then

cc-149 of 2022

amount spent by complainant has gone totally waste. Even after payment of Rs.14,700/-for changing some parts, if RO did not work well, then, there might have been some manufacturing defect that OPs failed to remove. Meaning thereby, technician of OPs despite having received huge amount of Rs.14,700/-for repair work from complainant, could not remove the defect from said water purifier due to some inherent manufacture defect therein. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his allegations and all documents furnished by complainant are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

11                        We have keenly considered the contentions in the light of evidence on record. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is observed that OPs have been deficient in providing proper services to complainant at the time of his first complaint regarding defect of not working properly. Had OPs  taken effective and appropriate steps to remove the defect and to improve the working of said RO by giving proper repairs at time of first complaint by complaint, there would have been no complaint at all. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed against OPs with direction to them to  provide effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant and to replace the requisite parts if any, required free of costs and are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated

cc-149 of 2022

compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses incurred by him.

12                                            Compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of  copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled get refund of cost price of  said Kent water softener i.e Rs.60,000/- alongwith repair charges of Rs.14,700/-.

13                                         Complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

14                                            Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 12.08.2024

   (Param Pal Kaur)        (Rakesh Kumar Singla)               

     Member                      President