Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for refund of Rs.49,000/- including cost of purifier of Rs.21,500/- plus cost of sinking Tube for Rs.12500/- plus compensation of Rs.15,000/-.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased an LG Purifier-MD-WAW531W2RP dt. 7.11.15 and the same was not functioning since 10.1.16 against complainant and replaced the RO(M) against change of Rs. 2875/- and the same was refunded against complaint. Again, the same was not functioning since 5.3.16 and on 9.3.16 technician came on complaint and opined that RO(M) is fully damaged and before replacing the RO, the source of water to be changed. Accordingly, new tube-well slinked on 27.3.16 spending Rs.12,500/- and informed them on 8.4.16 and replaced the RO(M) without any charge. At that time the source of water was tested from separate and found O.K. Again, the purifier was not functioning since 12.6.16 then technician came and opinioned that RO is to be changed with charge of Rs.2875/- . But the guarantee period is up to 6.11.16 then the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by OP, in brief, the OP has denied the allegation of the complainant categorically. The testing of water source by Sevabrata” is completely complaint’s liability. The OP is not liable to pay any compensation for that expenditure. The documents filed by the complaint are not believable. The complainant is to prove her case. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of the parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for Decision.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file the present complaint.
- Whether the complaint is barred by principle of waiver, acquiesce and estopplels?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The complainant is praying for refund of Rs.49000/- including cost of purifier for Rs.21,500/- plus cost of sinking tube well for Rs.12,500/- and compensation of Rs.15000/-.
The complainant’s main case for defective purifier and for the defective purifier as per the advice of the OP’s technician and even after change of RO(M) after sinking tube well the purifier became out of order, was not functioning and at that time the OP refused to replace the RO(M) free of cost inspite of the purifier was within the warranty period . Hence, the instant complaint.
On the other hand OP’s case is that the OP has denied the allegation of the complainant categorically. The testing of water source by Sevabrata” is completely complaint’s liability. The OP is not liable to pay any compensation for that expenditure. The documents filed by the complaint are not believable.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced her evidence on affidavit along with the relevant documents in support of her case. Those are tax invoice of the water filter, warranty card and report of Sevabrata.
From the materials on record it appears that OP replaced the RO(M) of the water filter twice on 13.01.2016 and 08.04.16 free of cost but on 3rd occasion the water filter was not function since 12.06.16 and the technician coming to house against the complaint on 13.06.16 and 15.06.16 opined that RO is to be changed with a charge of rs.2875/- instead of the same was within warrantee period up to 06.11.2016.
Admittedly, the water filter was purchased on 07.11.2015 and was not functioning since 10.01.16 and replaced on 13.01.16 and again the same was not function since 5.3.16 and replaced on 8.4.16 without any charge and lastly the water purifier was not functioning since 12.6.16 and after complaint on 17.6.16 and 15.6.16 coming to the house of the complainant, technician opined that the same RO to be changed with charge of Rs.2875/- though the guarantee period was up to 6.11.16.
For such consecutive defect the complainant has claimed that the purifier was defective and claimed refund of money of the water purifier.
In this case there is no prayer for replacement of the entire water purifier. The complainant has claimed refund of the purchase money of the water purifier.
It is true that the water purifier became out of order on three occasions on 10.1.16, 5.3.16 and 12.6.16 for the period 07.11.15 to 12.06.16.
During seven months the replacement of RO was required for thrice and as per warranty repair will be done free of cost during warrantee period.
In this case RO(M) was replaced on two occasions without charge. But, claimed charge on third occasion though warranty period was up to 6.11.16 .
In this case there is claim for refund of entire purchase price of water filter amounting to Rs.21, 500/- . But there is no case of manufacturing defect of water filter. Also, there is no iota of evidence to the effect of manufacturing defect by any expert evidence.
Regarding the claim of Rs.12, 500/- towards cost of sinking tube well, it appears that
on the second occasion the technician opined for change of source of water.
There is no corroborative evidence to that effect.
Warranty is only in respect of the water filter, not the other aspect.
That being so we are of view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief for getting Rs.12,500/- towards cost of sinking tube-well.
Considering the above facts and circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is only entitled to get the RO (M) of the Water filter replaced free of cost.
The Technician of the OP being attended the complainant then and there we are of view that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.
On the basis of above discussions as a whole we find that all the points are disposed of in part in favour of the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled to get the RO(M) replaced free of cost and there will be no order as to cost.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 106/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part.
The complainant is entitled to get the RO(M) replaced only free of cost and there will be no order as to cost.
The OP is directed to replace the RO(M) of the complainant free of cost within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP is to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
