Circumstances which compelled the complainant to hinge this commission that he purchased a water purifier having description article code 490024834 description as Kent Water Purifier Mineral RO Grand Plus on 06/11/2018. The article was under one year warranty with three years free service. But during use of article as purifier, complainant saw since January 2019, it was not working/ functioning properly for which purification of water was not done and caused damage to the health of the complainant and his family. The mater was informed to the Ops or company of the filter as manufacturer, retailer, seller etc. for redressal but no result. The article is now lying as non-functioning under un-worked-condition. Complainant repeatedly informed through email day after day for replacement or repairing perfectly in usable manner but nothing was done. Hence at first he knocked the door of assist. Direct. Consumer affairs dpt. Malda, but when yielded no positive result he approach before this commission with a prayer of replacement of filter or repairing with positive result for ever. Complainant prayed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for his harassment and Rs.70,000/-for litigation cost.
On the other dogma, OP-1 only filed or placed written version contending inter-alia all material averments and placed their submission that all the O.Ps are in the form of manufacturer, authorized dealer, and service provider of reliance digital limited and used to render service of selling, repairing , and maintenance of electronics goods to the customer. They are honest sincere and maintaining goodwill. This complainant all along enjoyed the service of OP-1. Fact remains on 06/11/2018 this complainant purchased water purifier and he logged a call on 18/04/2019 for servicing. Next call was logged on 31/05/2019 and RO MEMBRAME was replaced. Next call was logged on 19/06/2019 for another servicing which was RESQ under call no 8028847793. Then forth call was logged on 22/06/2019 and once again RO MENBRAME, SOLENOID VALVE was replaced. So as and when complainant logged the call they gave full service of changing RO MENBRAME, SOLENOID VALVE etc. But when complainant demanded replacement of the brand it was not possible because product comes under RCP warranty (after one year when brand warranty was over). RESQ offered consumer solution of @ 80% of the return value but complainant not agreed and demanded complete refund of the entire value including RCP amount which was not possible as per RESQ team. The OP-1 resolved this issue four times and replaced the parts twice giving service. But after that complainant did not receive any repair by Op-1 and asking for replacement. This Op-1 also sends a request for replacement of brand but company rejected as per their policy. This OP offered refund of @80% of product purchased value since product was in RCP plane which was Rs.12536/- but complainant denied and asked replacement of refund @ 80% of product value and the RCP amount which was total 12536 + 8538 = 21074. This OP-2 is only one of the store of sealing outlet and has no liability of any manufacturing defect. This complainant has only warranty with the manufacturer. At the time of purchase terms and conditions was duly understood by the complainant and he agreed and voluntarily accepted. So for manufacturing defect manufacturer only liable not distributer or retailer. So OP-1 being the retailer has no liability of manufacturing warranty. Hence there no deliberate latches and negligence on the part of OP-1 and no deficiency of service on his part. Hence this claim petition is not sustainable.
Now, in order to substantiate the matter of complaint complainant examined himself with proof of affidavit with documents (such as 1.Receipt of purchase, 2.Photo copy of delivery challan, 3.Warranty card, 4.email conversation, dated 04/11/2019, 05/11/2019, 06/11/2019, 07/11/2019, 09/11/2019, 11/11/2019,) but on the other hand reason best known to the OPs why they did not put any questionnaires to the witness or adduce any evidence on their behalf since placed a written version of them.
:DECISION WITH REASON:
Point to be decided :
- Whether complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there any persistent defect remained in the article?
- Whether complainant is entitled to get new one as urged/asked for?
- Whether there any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops or unfair trade practices there?
This commission carefully pursed the evidence of the complainant as given by and the documents as produced. Admittedly complainant purchased this article from the Ops with full consideration. So he is a consumer in true sense. As per his deposition he purchased this article on 06/11/2018 with one year warranty & three years free service warranty. At such juncture this water filter was not properly functioned since January 2019 and became faulty eight times in a year regarding purification of water. Complainant informed the company but no result.
Now This commission on perusal of W.V. of OP-1 has been in well conversed that this subject-article was repaired by OP-1 as and when called by the complainant but when complainant urged for replacement of the article Ops were unable as because it was not under their capacity due to elapse of brand warranty and product came under RCP warranty. Father RESQ team offered @80% of money refund of value but complainant denied and demanded ether replacement of article or refund of @80% product value and total RCP amount of Rs.21074/-. But practically to observe that, all these statement of OP-1 has not been evidenced on behalf of them or they did not place any substantial argument to understand this commission about “BRAND WARRANTY AND RCP WARRANTY etc.” hence this commission is in dark about their performance against this selling of article to the consumer. But as per substantiation by the consumer through his oral & documentary evidence it is proved, at present this subject-article is laying inactive condition when pure water is an essential element for the part of a life of the living human. These continuous emails as produced/documented by the complainant with the company manifested a refusal on the part of company as their remedy on the consumptions of drinking water of the consumer. We find through email dated 05/11/2019 complainant clearly wrote/conversed with the company that on 06/11/2018 he purchase the machine but that was not working properly since warranty period to till now, though six time technician visited the machine and also changed some parts but on 28/09/2019 machine was completely damaged, and practically seven time it was repaired in a year but no result. By these emails specially on perusal of email dated 09/11/2019 it came to the knowledge of the commission that this warranty period was extended for further two years on paying Rs.7951/- in dewali-offer which expire on 03/01/2021. Consequently we find when this complainant lodged this complain before this commission this subject-article was under warranty period, that is one year warranty at the time of purchase and two years extended-warranty for dewali-offer behind that payment of Rs.7351/-. And he filed this case on 23/12/2020 when it covered under the warranty period.
So observing pose and corns of this case after trial, we the commission make an observation that when there was a persistent problem pursuing the repairing day after day on the subject article behind purifying of water since purchase or in warranty period Ops are duty bound to replace the water purifier irrespective of their service as alleged in W.V. The water purifier was in warranty period and when water is one of the eminent elements on the part of life this consumer is entitle to get a new one in full working condition on his purchased value of the water filter. Non-functioning condition of his purchased subject-article is not only a deficiency of service but also an unfair trade practice of the Ops in joint venture. They cannot shift their burden/liability to each other on saying that it is a manufacturing defect and manufacturing company is only liable”. When distributer, retailer are a part of proprietor-company and they take the responsibility of selling the article/instrument, they are also duty bound to replace the subject if it becomes non-functioning and defective one day by day, basically when the article is nothing but a instrument of drinking water.
Hence it is ordered,
that the complainant do get a new water filter of same brand/category following his already given price of Rs.23,021.31/- within one month of this date of order, i/d complainant is entitle to refund of full amount of his purchase price of Rs.23,021.31/- along with @6% interest per annum running from the date of purchase to till realization. Complainant is also entitle Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost. Disobedience of this court/commission’s order give rise to the complainant after two month of this order to execute the same as per provision of consumer protection act 2019 under section 71 and 72 of said act.
Let a copy of judgment/final order be supplied to the party at a free of cost.
