By: Sri Santi Prosad Roy, Member
Corrected by Sri Kamal De, President
The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased ‘Kent Grand + Mineral RO’ water purifier being serial no. KR 130941552 from the OP1, with a proper receipt no. 4772 dtd. 19.12.2013 with warranty for one year from the date of purchase.
After two months of using the said water purifier started malfunctioning. The complainant duly lodged complaint to the OP1. After the complainant allegedly made several complaints, the OP1 sent a mechanic to the house of the complainant and repaired the said water purifier. But the problem started after three days. The complainant again informed the OP1 and the OP1 personally came and opened the machine and suggested the complainant to change the RO filter with a demand of Rs.2700/- and he took the said old filter with him and did not take any step.
The complainant informed the matter to the Area Manager, Mr. Sanjoy Bagchi, the OP2 over telephone and due to his intervention the said RO filter has been changed without any cost. Then after two months the same problem was found and the complainant, being disappointed, again informed the OP1 who sent one mechanic and the said mechanic checked the said water purifier and informed the complainant that the carbon filter was burst and should be changed for Rs.400/-. The said mechanic took the said old carbon filter with him and as a result the water purifier became ineffective since then.
The complainant, getting no relief from the OPs, lodged a complaint to the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Purba Medinipur RO, on 27.11.2014 who ordered the OP1 to send one mechanic again for servicing the water purifier of the complainant. But, the mechanic could not repair the water purifier and ultimately it became defunct. Hence the instant case.
The OP1 contested this instant case by filing W/V and WNA contending interalia that the complainant has initiated a false case which is not maintainable under C.P. Act, 1986. The OP1 argued that he had sent mechanic to repair the water purifier and also for servicing the same. But the complainant was not satisfied and allegedly abused the OP1 and his mechanic with filthy language.
The OP2 contested this instant case contending interalia that the complainant filed a frivolous complaint with an ulterior motive to extort money from OP2 by way of exorbitant compensation. It is stated in their WNA filed before the Forum that whenever the complainant informed the OP1 or OP2 about the non-functioning of the water purifier, they sent mechanics duly and repaired or replaced the parts which were necessary and service report was duly signed by the complainant after satisfactory service (annexure-A). It is also the contention of the OP2 that had there been a manufacturing defect, the water purifier could not have started functioning after the installation. Accordingly, the OP2 prays for dismissal of the case, since it is a frivolous complaint although the OP2 is willing to repair the water purifier, if the complainant allows the mechanic of the OP1 to do the same.
Points for consideration:
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief, as sought for?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the alleged water purifier suffers from defect?
Decision with reason:
Both the parties filed their respective documents (photocopies/original) as per their respective list of documents.
We have heard the ld. Advocates for both sides over the argument and carefully gone through the pleadings and documents on record filed by the parties.
All the points, as above, are taken together for convenience and brevity of discussions.
On going through the records, we find that the complainant on 19.12.2013 purchased one ‘Kent Grand + Mineral RO’ water purifier from the OP1 with warranty for one year from the date of purchase and it was installed in the house of the complainant by the mechanic of OP1. After two months of using, the said water purifier started malfunctioning. The complainant lodged complaint to the OP1 who after longtime sent one mechanic to the house of the complainant and repaired the water purifier. But the problem started again. The complainant again informed the OP1 and the OP1 personally came and opened the machine and suggested the complainant to change the RO filter with a demand of Rs.2700/-. The complainant informed the matter to the Area Manager, Mr. Sanjoy Bagchi, the OP2 over telephone and due to his intervention the said RO filter has been changed without any cost.
Then after two months the same problem was found and the complainant, being disappointed, again informed the OP1 who sent one mechanic and the said mechanic checked the said water purifier and informed the complainant that the carbon filter was burst and should be changed for Rs.400/-. The said mechanic took the said old carbon filter with him and as a result the water purifier became ineffective since then. The OP1 did not send any mechanic to the complainant since then.
The Service Card of the OP1 indicates that mechanic of OP1 visited the house of the complainant for five times including the date of installation of water purifier, who made repair and necessary service of the said water purifier. The said service of the OP1 was duly acknowledged by the complainant by endorsing his signature in the column of customer’s signature.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 1 has argued that his client rendered satisfactory service and the water purifier might be suffering from some kind of manufacturing defects. Therefore, the onus lies with the OP No. 2 to make good the loss.
On the other hand, Ld. Lawyer appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 has argued that the Complainant mishandled the water purifier and the OP No. 2 replaced the defective parts of the purifier. The OPs are not responsible for the mishandling or improper maintenance of the purifier by the Complainant.
On close scrutiny of the materials on record, it appears that the OPs time and again attended to the calls of the Complainant for removal of the defect appertaining to the water purifier in question, but in spite of all such endeavour, the water purifier could not be restored to its proper functioning and as it appears that presently it is lying inoperative, may be, due to manufacturing defect or otherwise.
It pricks the conscience of any reasonable man that the machine after its purchase is not functioning and the problem with the water purifier cropped up within two months from the date of its purchase. Repairing on several occasions has not been effective and the water purifier has virtually become defunct as on this date. Obviously to our mind, the Complainant has reason to raise consumer dispute and the water purifier appears to be defective.
Defect, as we know, means any fault, imperfection, or shortcoming, in the quality, quantity, performance, purity or standard, which is required to be maintained under any contract – expressed or implied.
We, accordingly, do hold that the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the complaint.
Complainant has advanced a claim as against purchase of water from the market amounting to Rs. 23,590/-. We are afraid, the Complainant could not come up with any dependable document with regard to the fact that he purchased water from the market on account of defect in the water purifier. The Complainant has filed photocopy of an invoice of one M/s S&S Enterprise showing purchase of water of 20 ltrs. + 5 ltrs. However, there is no mention of dates of purchase of such water in such invoice. Invoice is dated 25.04.2015 and as we find that the instant case is filed on 27.04.2015 – just one or two days before the date of filing of the case. It is not forthcoming before us that on which dates such mineral water bottles were purchased. Moreover, there is no privity of contract in between the Complainant and the OPs that the OPs will be responsible to reimburse the cost of mineral water bottle in case the water purifier goes out of order. The voucher/invoice accordingly inspires no confidence in our mind to give in to the claim of the Complainant in this regard.
As a logical corollary, we are of view that the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for along with compensation and litigation cost.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the C.C. No. 36/2015 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OPs. The OPs are directed to either replace the defective water purifier in question with a new one of similar specification or refund the cost of the water purifier, i.e., Rs. 16,500/- together with compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,650/- being 10% of the value of defective water purifier and litigation cost of Rs. 8,000/-. The OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid awarded amount to the Complainant within 40 days from the date of this order, i.d., the Complainant is at liberty to take recourse to execution as mandated under the Act.
