BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 24^th November 2015       

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 26/2015  

Complainant/s:

M/s.Kerudi Hospital & Research Centre, Extension Area, Bagalkot 587101. Re. by its Partner Dr.B.H.Kerudi.

(By Sri.B.S.Hoskeri, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. Ekadantha Solutions, Shop No.1, Sheta Plaza, Old Income Tax Office Road, Near Sevenbeens Hotel, Vidyanagar, Hubli 580030. Rep. by its Proprietor.

(By Sri.B.K.Anand, Adv.)

2. Eureka Forbes Ltd., 2/2 Mandoth Mansion, BTS Main Road, Lakkasandra Extn. Bangalore 560030.

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to refund Rs.96,180/- cost of the 2 water purifiers with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss, harassment and mental agony and order for cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant in order to install water purifier in his establishment M/s.Kerudi hospital and Research Center approached the respondent.1 who is the dealer and service center of Eureka Forbes purifier plant manufactured by the respondent.2 and appeased by the advise of the respondent.1 the complainant purchased 2 units of water purifier for a consideration of Rs.96,180/- for the free use of hospital establishment, especially for the welfare of the patients on 18.11.2013 under invoice no.157. After installation of the same the water purifier works normally for a few days and it did not works as advised by the respondent.1 and yields no purified water as per the norms assured. Apart from insufficient yield of pure water the device was suffering from leakage in its earliest span of usage and within the warranty of one year as assured. On 16.06.2014 the complainant lodged complaint to the respondent intimating to rectify the same. Though it was attended not set right the defects. Again on 19.06.2014 and on 21.06.2014 the complainant sent e-mails to respondents to attend and to do the needful. On 22.06.2014 some personnel of respondent.1 attended but not cured the defects. By not set righting the defects the very purpose of the installation of the purifier went in vein apart from it the complainant subjected to mental agony due to failure to supply the drinking water to the required persons who approaches the hospital and inmates of the wards. At last the complainant got issued legal notice to the respondent on 08.09.2014 directing to comply the terms of the delivery note. Despite service of the notice respondents not bothered to respond which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by the act of the respondents complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent.1 appeared and contested the matter while the respondent.2 remained absent and exparte proceedings initiated against respondent.2.

4.     The respondent.1 admits written version in detail. While the answering respondent taken contention that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. manufacturer. Among such other admissions and denials the respondent.1 taken contention that he is unaware of the defects and non performance of the device as per the assurance of the manufacturer contending that he is only a distributor of the product and not a service provider. Further the respondent taken contention that being a distributor advised the complainant to approach the authorized service provider and also instructed the service provider to attend the same & denied the rest of the complaint averments contending that those are beyond the knowledge of the respondent.1 i.e. the distributor. Further contended what are the defects and non performance of the device in accordance with the norms of the manufacturer the answering respondent is not liable and prays for dismissal of the complaint further contending that there is no cause of action & the answering respondent is not a necessary party.

5.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit. The complainant relied on documents and citations in support of his case.   Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1.   Affirmatively
2.   Accordingly 
3.   As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

6.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant had purchased 2 units of water purifier from the respondent.1 manufactured by the respondent.2.

7.     Since the manufacturer respondent 2 remained exparte the contents of the complaint to an extent performance of the unit, yield of purified water as per the norms and leakage of the units as contended by the complainant remained unimpeached.

8.     Further since the respondent did not raised any objections with regard to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint the said facts does not arise. However the complainant in support of maintainability of the complaint submits and relied on 2010 (3) CPJ 381 NC- Deepak K.Raman Vs. Maruti Udyog & ors. Hence, in view of decision relied we hold the present complainant is a consumer and the present complaint as brought is maintainable.

9.     Under unimpeached circumstances of complaint allegations we inclined to accept the grievance of the complainant and hold the units are suffering from defects and not performing as per the norms and assurance given by both respondents. Accordingly complainant established his case of deficiency in service. Hence, entitled for the relief.

10.   In view of the pleadings, evidence putforth and observation, discussions we arrived and inclined to held issue.1 in affirmatively and issue.2 accordingly.

11.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

Complaint is partly allowed. The respondent.1 and 2 jointly and severally to set right the units with free of charges and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to set right as stipulated to replace the new units. Failing to set right the defects or to replace as ordered the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the units with interest @9% P.A. from 08.09.2014 till realization. The complainant also directed to approach the respondent.1 immediately along with the certified copy under an acknowledgement as a proof of intimation and approach.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 24^th day of November 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR