Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased a Morphy Richard Salvo (Sl. No. GE01WH01 061300762) 10 litreGeyser on 19.02.2014 from Asish Electric Company, 11, Ezra Street, Kolkata – 700001. Op no.3 Morphy Richard Brand and the same is marketed and serviced by the Bajaj Electricals Limited the op no.1. Thereafter op no.1 the employees came to the residence of the complainant on 20.02.2014 to install the said Geyserwho did not bear adequate knowledge of installation of 10 litregeyser and after removing the old defunct Geyser they expressed their inability to install the new said Geyser.
After that on the next date i.e. 21.02.2014 the said Geyser was installed but the hot water outlet pressure has reduced drastically in both the tap and shower in comparison with the previous geyser installed at the same position and other geysers installed in other bath of the complainant.
On compelling back again on or about 22.02.2014 a technician visited and claimed that the inlet pressure might be inadequateand later when he checked the building tank elevation which is 15 feet (approx.) above from the geyser position he was satisfied and confirmed that the inlet pressure is perfectly sufficient. It is pertinent to mention here that he also communicated over the phone to someone that problem from the unit is same as some other site’s problem where same model of Morphy Richard was installed.
Thereafter one Tapas Layak some technical head from Bajaj/MorphyRichard visited personally with his technician and his technician made his best efforts to check the inlet and outlet water pressure and as per Tapas’s best juegements he was 100percent satisfied with the inlet pressure and elevation of the main water tank which is 15 feet above. He was also satisfied by the outlet water pressure of other geysers installed at complainant’s premises and no point of increasing the inlet pressure was necessary. He promised that some action either exchange of returning the unit would definitely be taken but till 03.03.2010 no action was taken and matter was delayed by the company representatives of reasons best known to them, until the complainant escalated this issue to head office at Mumbai with Ms. VaidehiAmbavale.
Thereafter Mr. B.N. Dash Chief Manager-Customer care, Bajaj Electricals Ltd. 10 Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata was in loop directly with the company representatives who visited complainant’s house for the above issue. On 03.03.2014 complainant escalated this issue to the Bajaj Head Office (Mumbai) and finally received the reply from Mr. B.N. Dash in technical terms that the said geyser was meant for high pressure installation and it would not give adequate water outlet with shower application andhence express inability to change this model and requested the complainant to enhance inlet pressure in consultation with a professional plumber. Further they also sent highly technical specifications of the water tank and pipe dimensions stating verbally that complainant should have checked and researched for the same before purchasing any Geyser.
On the basis of the company and service goodwill of Bajaj Electricals the complainant purchased the said unit keeping in mind that other water heater of same make is installed at their premises with no such problems and complainant will not face any such issues or problem. But truth is that till installation the said Geyser giving proper supply of hot water in the top and also shower. But op also did not take any step or has not changed the same. It is no doubt an unfair trade practice and deceitful manner of business on the part of the op and for which complainant has filed this complaint praying for refund the amount of consideration to the complainant after removing the Geyser and also caused for compensation for harassment.
On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted very specifically that it was sold by the op no.3, so it was the duty of op no.3 to explain on what point of distance from the tank it shall be placed and what type of pressure is required for proper use of the Geyser and for passing water from deep line and shower and it was not sold by the op no.1. But it wassold by the op no.3 and he can say only for what reasons such sort of geyser was sold to the complainant.
Further it is specifically mentioned that the different height between the geyser where it has been installed and the water tank is maximum 15 Ft and there are several bends in the pipe line through which ultimately it got connected with inlet tap of the geyser. Therefore the pressure will be naturally reduced because of such close proximity of the geyser and the water tank at the inlet itself and to get the optimum pressure at the outlet minimum required distance between the overhead tank and geyser should be 30 ft which will give pressure equivalent to 1 Bar (Kg/Sq. Mt.) where as effective pressure at the complainant end is only half of that.
Further it is submitted that the complainant has allegedly purchased Morphy Richards also has lower diameter of inlet-outlet pipes compared to previous unit of Bajaj Majesty which he claims to have been using and the inside diameter of inlet-outlet pipes of Morphy Richards (10L) is 9.00 mm and that of Bajaj Majesty (10L) is = 11.70 mm, therefore both the models are not comparable in performance parameters and this aspect was well known to the complainant.
Moreover complainant can still have higher water pressure which needs to be mechanically induced and that has to be done separately by the complainant depending upon his plumbing parameters for which answering op cannot take any responsibility. Practically complainant got all brochure and manual which is available in the sealed box from which the guarantee card is extracted and complainant is fully aware of the type of product what he purchased at a normal diligent and prudent customer would always enquire about the basic performance parameters before purchasing and this aspect of pre-purchase consumer satisfactions can be specifically averred by the op no. 3 from whose counter the product had been purchased.
So, in the above circumstances it is the liability of the op no.3 when op no.3 sold it and it is op no.3’s liability to do the same and to give such satisfaction to the complainant. Moreover the installation was made by the mechanic of the op no.3 otherwise there is no defect in the said product and moreover it is specifically mentioned by the op no.1, but it has been done by the technical men of op no.3. So, it was the responsibility of the op no.3 and art the same time op no.3 is authorized dealer for selling and marketing such article manufactured by op no.3. So, op no.3 is responsible for that and there is no ground on the part of op no.1 to continue because complainant has failed to produce any documents or any expert report that the said article bears no manufacturing defect. Moreover complainant has failed to prove that op no.1 supplied such sort of defective geyser to the op mno.3 and for which there is no breach of warranty or agreement or there was no duty on the part of op no.1 to compensate. In the result, the complaint should be dismissed.
No doubt in this case op no.1 is the Chief Manager of Bajaj Electricals Ltd., op no.2 Morphy Richards and op no.3 Ashish Electric Company from whom complainant purchased the said unit of geyser. But op nos.2 & 3 did not appear before this Forum even after receipt of the summons which was duly served upon them. Only op no.1 contested on behalf of Bajaj Electricals Ltd. So considering the entire materials on record and hearing the Ld. Lawyer, we are disposed of finally.
Decision with reasons
In this very case after considering the written version and also the complaint and further relying upon the document advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased this geyser from Morphy Richards and Ashish Electric Co. vide Invoice No. CM-II 3190 dated 19.02.2014 and truth is that the said sale was made by the op no.3 to the complainant and complainant purchased it and it was sent only by the presence of the op no.3 made by the employees or technicians of op no.1. But after installation complainant no doubt placing some system about pressure and only pressure from the said geyser, tap and shower and when that matter was reported to the service centre, service centre authority went there and checked up and found that there is no technical defect or anything. But only it was mentioned that such a geyser must be placed in such a place in the flat and the gap between the tank and the place of the gyeser is installed must be 30 ft. But in the present case it is 20 ft. from the overhead tank for which normally pressure of water cannot be disbursed. Then question is it is whose fault for which such a geyser was sold to the complainant and when complainant went to the op no,.3 to purchase the same all those technicalities were not disclosing by the op no.3 to the complainant. If op no.3 at the time of purchase of the said geyser by the complainant from op no.3, if op no.3 disclosed the entire fact in that case invariably complainant shall have to ask the op no.3 to check the matter at first. But fact remains op no.3 gave chance to contest the case but op no.3 did not appear to contest this case and did not challenge the allegation of the complainant regarding non-disclosure of the fact either such geyser must be placed at a distance of 30 ft. from the tank point. But truth is that complainant has replaced the flat which is situated in 3rd floor and gap in between the bathroom and toilet only 15 ft. So, geyser is unable to discharge required unit of pressure and it is proved by the op no.3 that such a geyser must be placed at a distance of 30 ft. from the overhead tank. But there is no scope to place the same at 30 ft. which is situated in 3rd floor and distance from water tank to place of fixing geyser is 15 ft So, invariably it is the laches on the part of the op no.3 seller and it was the duty of the seller to convince the complainant at the time of purchase but never told what distance in between the bathroom and the overhead tank of the said apartment is required, but that has not been properly discussed by the op no.3 and for which after purchasing the same without such knowledge when it was installed op no.3’s person were present and they also noticed and considered that point, that means op no.3 was negligent for selling the said item to the complainant and practically op no.3 is responsible for the above problem as faced by to the complainant and complainant as customer went to the technical expert op no.3 who are selling such geyser to different persons and it was the duty and responsibility of the seller to sell of electric item to any purchaser and at the time of purchase it must be disclosed what is the system of the said electric unit and what place it shall be fixed from the tank and nothing was disclosed, only he sold geyser without giving any instruction to the complainant that it must be placed at a distance of 30 ft. from the tank but that was not disclosed that means op no.3 did not discharge his liability as a seller to the complainant for which no doubt op no.3 is responsible for causing such sort of mental pain, sufferings and also for rendering deficient manner of service.
Truth is that op no.3 sold the said geyser and he sold it without disclosing the parameter of fixation and installation of the said article in the bathroom. But it was installed by the op no.3 by their mechanic that means op no.3 only for the purpose of selling somehow did not disclose the guideline of installation of such article and a minimum distance required for installation from the tank and if it would be disclosed by the op no.3 in that case this complainant must not have to purchase the same and in the above situation we are convinced to hold that op no.3 as seller deceived the complainant.
Regarding liability of op no.1 we have gathered that op no.1 is the manufacturer, though marketed the same and op no.3 purchased the same as dealer and sold it to the complainant. But it is the duty of the dealer to disclose the maintenance, installation procedure and other fact and as per guideline of Brochure and warranty that was not done. So, gross negligence on the part of op no.3 is well proved. In view of the above circumstances, we find that complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of op nos. 1 & 2 when there is no defect in the said geyser. But truth is that this article such a geyser cannot give proper service for want of required gap of 30 ft. from tank to 3rd floor of the complainant and in view of the above circumstances, we find that there is no scope on the part of the complainant to use even after purchase of the same but position of flat cannot be replaced at 30 ft. distance from the tank and for which op no.3 must have to refund the entire amount after deducting the said geyser cost and op nos. 1 & 2 shall not be given any relief in view of the fact the present position of the flat of the complainant cannot be anyway replaced or changed. So the entire distance is only 15 ft. and installation this geyser was not justified and complainant shall not have to get proper inlet pressure for that reason what is noted in the Brochure. But op no.3 did not disclosed that which is no doubt unfair trade practice.
Manufacturer op no.1 shall be responsible if it would be found that there was/is any defect in the said geyser and it would be found that it was manufacturing defect. But manufacturing defect was not there. In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that there is no scope on the part of the op no.1 to replace the same in view of the fact that there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op no.1. but the entire negligence and deficiency was done by the op no.3 for which op no.3 shall have to refund the entire amount of Rs. 7,350/- the price of the said geyser at once along with compensation and litigation cost because op no.3’s deceitful manner of selling of the said article to complainant, complainant suffered much mental pain, agony and also have to file such a case before this Forum.
In the result, the complaint succeeds against the op no.3 only but same is false against op nos. 1 & 2.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op nos.1 & 2 but without any cost and same is allowed exparte against op no.3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
Op no.3 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 7,350/- the price of the geyser and also a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassing the complainant for selling such an electrical item geyser in a deceitful manner.
Op no.3 shall have to pay Rs. 17,350/- in total to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this by taking back the disputed geyser order failing which for non-execution of Forum’s order, op no.3 shall have to pay penal interest at the rate Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree but even if it is found that op no.3 has violated the Forum’s order in that case penal action u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started for which op no.3 shall have to pay further penalty and fine.
