DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 172 of 12.5.2017

                                      Decided on:           15.11.2017

O.P.Gupta aged about 90 years son of late Sh.Jagdish Rai, resident of H.No.4595, Street No.2, Sirhindi Gate, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Bombay Crockeries, Chowk Arya Samaj, Patiala, the authorized and wholesale Dealer of Glassware, Plastic Goods, Home Appliances, Crockery Merchants i.e. of INALSA, EUREKA FORBES, SUNFLAME, IFB.

2.       M/s Kent RO Systems Limited, A-2, Sector 59, NOIDA (UP) 20139 through its General Manager sales and service.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.K.S.Aulakh,Advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Parshotam Singh, authorized rep. for OPs No.1&2.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one Kent Pearl RO system from OP no.1 vide invoice No.1255 on 8.6.2016 for an amount of Rs.15800/-(R.O.No.K.R. 1512009602) which was installed at the residence of the complainant on 10.6.2016. The OP gave one year warranty for it. After installation of the same, the complainant remained using the said RO but  being an old person could not notice that the RO contained an insect in its water tank which is very dangerous for human consumption as the insect creeps in the whole reservoir  of the R.O.system. On noticing the same, the complainant approached Op no.1 requesting it to inspect the RO system and to replace the same with a new one. Upon the complaint of the complainant, an engineer visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the kent RO system and also found insects in the water tank and also admitted that the complaint of the complainant was genuine but failed to find out the defect and without solving the problem left the premises of the complainant. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant lodged various complaints through e-mail I/D to both the OPs but to no use. Whenever the water is taken in the glass from the RO filter system, the insects creep in water which  is very dangerous for human consumption and the said R.O.system is having same manufacturing defect in it. On failure of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant, the complainant  approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On merits, OPs appeared through its authorized representative and filed their reply to the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one R.O.system from OP no.1 on 10.6.2016.It is submitted by the OPs that sofar the complainant has filed three complaints with the customer care and all the complaints of the complainant were properly attended to and FOC services were provided timely during the warranty period. The 1^st complaint was lodged vide complaint No.161015-05884 on 15.10.2016, which was attended to by its technician on 16.10.2016. However, the condition of the kitchen where the purifier is installed was found to be very pathetic and the complainant was advised to maintain some hygiene in and around the kitchen area and also to give pest control treatment at some regular intervals. On the subsequent visit made by the technician there was no improvement on cleanliness side and the insects were still found in and around the kitchen area of the complainant. It is further submitted that its technician had already resolved the problem of insects and ants etc. in the water tank of purifier by filling a gasket and modification kit with the tank of the purifier. After the receipt of the notice from this Forum, the technician of the OPs again checked the purifier on 19.6.2017, which was found to be working without any problem and the same was communicated to the complainant through a registered letter dated 29.6.2017.As such OPs cannot be said to be deficient in service and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, his counsel tendered in evidence Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C18 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the representative of the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his affidavit and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant, the rep. of the OPs, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Ex.C2 is the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one kent R.O.System from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.15800/- on 8.6.2016.Ex.C3 is the warranty card which shows that the R.O.system was under one year warranty. Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 are the photographs showing the entry of insect in the water tank of the R.O.system. Exs.C15 & 16 are the e-mails sent by the complainant to the OPs but nobody turned up from the side of the OPs. Exs.C11 is the 2^nd e-mail dated 9.12.2016 sent by the complainant to the OPs and Ex.C12 is the e-mail dated 6.1.2017 sent by the complainant to the OPs. Ex.C13 is the e-mail sent by the complainant on 20.1.2017 in which it is mentioned that inspite of rectification of the problem by the engineer of the OPs on 12.11.2016, the problem has not been solved and the inspects still creep in the R.O.system whereas the OPs have submitted in its reply that it received three complaints from the complainant and every time it was duly attended to and the problem was rectified by fitting additional sealing gasket and modification kit with the tank of the purifier. Though the OPs have taken this plea but they have failed to produce on record any documentary evidence to show that the problem in the R.O.system was rectified. Inspite of repeated attempts by the OPs to rectify the problem, the defect could not be rectified.There seems to be a manufacturing defect in the R.O. system.The problem occurred in the R.O. system during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint with a direction to the OPs to refund  amount of Rs.15,800/- to the complainant, the same being the price of the R.O. system.OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified  copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:15.11.2017              

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER