Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/191/2017

Eureka Forbes Ltd., Regional Office - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.Gunasekaran - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi-Petnr. Applt.

19 Jan 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 3.

 BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                   ::     PRESIDENT                       

                  Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 191/2017

  (Against the Order dt.18.02.2015 in C.C. No.34/2013 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (North))

                         DATED THE 19^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

Regional Office,

No.558, Thandiyarpet High Road,

Thandiyarpet,

Chennai – 600 081.                                                       ..Appellant /Opposite party.

 

- Versus -

Mr. D. Gunasekaran,

No.25/17, Vanniyar Street,

Kaladipet,

Thiruvottiyur,

Chennai – 600 019.                                                         ..Respondent /Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellant /Opposite party   : M/s. K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi

Respondent /Complainant                     : Party in person

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today on 19.01.2022 and on hearing the arguments of Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order in open court :-

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

            This appeal has been filed by the appellant / opposite party under section 15  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North).

 

 

 

 

1.         The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party who are the manufacturers and sellers of Eureka Forbes Water Purifiers with a prayer to direct the opposite party to repay the complainant the sum of Rs.9,990/- paid  towards the cost of the water filter, to repay Rs.400/- paid towards the cost of additional filter along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the complaint.

2.         It was the case of the complainant that on seeing the widely advertised products by the opposite party, the complainant had purchased one water purifier namely; Reviva Model on 10.02.2011 by paying an advance of Rs.500/- followed by the balance payment of Rs.8490/- on 11.02.2011.   The product was installed in the complainant’s house in a couple of days and at the time of installation the Service Personnel informed that as the water was transparent /colourless no additional filter was necessary.  The product was functioning properly for a few days and thereafter suddenly, the water output had turned yellow in colour. On reporting to the opposite party, the Service Personal visited the complainant’s house and informed that an additional filter was necessary and a payment of Rs.400/- was made on 14.02.2011 to one Mr. M. Prasath, the staff of the opposite party towards the cost of the additional filter.  Thereafter, the staff did not install any additional filter as promised and the water filter was lying idle as the water was not fit for drinking.  The complainant made several complaints to the helpline numbers of the opposite party but all the efforts went in vain.   Even the complainant made complaints to the opposite party company but there was no response.  The water filter was lying idle after 3 days of use till today.  Thus, alleging negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party the complaint was filed for the relief as mentioned above.   

3.         The opposite party filed version stating that they are the leading marketing company of extensive products which are very much essential in daily life like water purifiers, vacuum cleaners, air purifiers, RO water purifier etc., used for domestic and industrial purposes.   Further they submitted that they are the Asia’s largest direct selling organisation and their technicians have been trained well by the company.   It was submitted that the complaint as filed is not maintainable since the manufacturer was not made a party to the complaint.   The allegations made by the complainant was denied  by the opposite party stating that the machine was in working condition and has no manufacturing defect at the time of installation.  It was admitted that soon after the complaint was made by the complainant, one staff person by name Mr. Prasath was sent to attend the complainant’s grievance who tested the TDS level of the complainant’s water and advised an additional filter to be installed.   It was also admitted that an amount of Rs.400/- was also collected by him on 14.02.2011.  But as the staff Mr. Prasath has resigned the job and left the opposite party’s company he could not install the additional filter to the complainant’s water filter.   The opposite party soon after the receipt of notice from the complainant extended its willingness to install the additional purifier at once but was not accepted by the complainant and he wanted only the same person who collected the money Mr. Prasath to attend the service.   Thus, the opposite party submitted that they have not committed any deficiency in service and they were even always willing to provide an extended AMC to the complainant and sought for dismissal of the complaint.    

4.         The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.  On the side of the opposite party proof affidavit was filed and document Ex.B1 was filed. 

5.         The learned District Commission perusing the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant partly allow the complaint and ordered the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.10,390/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation besides a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost of the complaint holding that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party had preferred the present appeal. 

6.         Point for consideration:-

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

7.         Point:-

Admitted facts:

1. That the complainant had purchased one water purifier Reviva Model at a cost of Rs.9,990/-  from the opposite party on 10.02.2011;
2. That the water purifier was installed in a couple of days by the service personal of the opposite party and was working properly giving purified water for few days;
3. That the water purifier failed to give the satisfied purified water after some days and a complaint was registered by the complainant;
4. That a service personal namely one Mr. M. Prasath staff of the opposite party visited the complainant’s house and on attending the water purifier insisted for installation of an additional filter at the cost of Rs.400/-;
5. That on 14.02.2011, Rs.400/- was paid by the complainant for the additional filter to be installed but till the date of complaint the same was not installed by the opposite party;
6. That the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party which was allowed partly.

Heard the Counsel for the appellant who argued that there is  no deficiency in service on their part and there is no default or defect in the machine supplied to the complainant.  The only reason was that the nature of ground water various from place to place and hence, they advised the complainant to install an additional filter to get the expected purified water, but the complainant insisted that only the service personal Mr. M. Prasath who received the amount of Rs.400/- should attend the complaint which is impossible for the reason that the said person has already left the company resigning his job.  Thus, the Counsel argued that there is no deficiency in their service and they are also willing to provide an extended AMC to the complainant.  Further, the Counsel argued that as the complaint was filed only against this opposite party and not against the manufacturer of the product the same was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Thus, the counsel sought for the appeal to be allowed.

We perused the pleadings and documents submitted by both the parties.  It is an admitted fact that the water purifier purchased from the opposite party needs an additional filter for which, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.400/- to the opposite party which fact is not denied either in the version or in the arguments by the opposite party.  Further the submission made by the opposite party that the complainant insisted that only Mr. M. Prasath should attend the complaint and not any other service personnel appears to be beyond imagination as no prudent consumer/customer  will require a particular person to attend the complaint as his intention will be only for the rectification of the defect and for the utilization of the product.    Hence, in the absence of any supporting materials produced by the opposite party we are of the considered opinion that the said submission needs to be brushed aside as not substantiated.   Further, the argument raised that manufacturer was not made a party to the proceeding and hence the complaint is not maintainable is also to be ignored for the reason that the complainant no where alleged any manufacturing defect in the complaint but his submissions regarding deficiency in service is only against the opposite party with regard to the non-installation of the additional purifier.  In such circumstances, we have no other option but to conclude that the opposite party inspite of receiving the sum of Rs.400/- towards the cost of additional filter has failed to install the same thereby committing deficiency in service for which, the complainant should be compensated for the mental agony suffered by him.   Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned District Commission holding that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and directing them to refund a sum of Rs.10,990/- with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- is justified and requires no interference by this Commission and the same is hereby confirmed.

In  the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dt.18.02.2015 made in C.C. No.34/2013 on the file of the District Commission, Chennai (North).   No costs.

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                         R. SUBBIAH             

          MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT