In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.120/2012
1) Khuzema Chowdhury alias Maleka Chowdhury,
91/A, Ripon Street, Kolkata-16. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Eureka Forbes Ltd.
7, Chakraberia Road (South), Kolkata-25 ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 14 Dated 15-07-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant brought charges of deficiency of service on the part of o.p. in providing annual maintenance service to the water purifier machine of the said complainant under a service contract with the complainant, a regd. company which are absolutely false, baseless, ill-motivated and concocted and such charges were made with an ulterior motive and malafide intention to squeeze money from the complainant company who is absolutely innocent in the instant matter.
Complainant had purchased an ‘Aquaguard Compact’ model water purifier cum filter machine on 23.9.05 from the complainant company and that the initial warranty for the said product was for a period of one year from the date of purchase i.e. from 23.9.05 to 22.9.06. On expiry of the said initial warranty period the complainant entered into service contract with the complainant company for providing regular service of the aforesaid product purchased, which was renewed from time to time except for the time period between 29.6.09 to 19.8.10 when no annual maintenance contract was made by the complainant (though a free service was provided to her on request on 23.8.09) and the said water purifier machine remained unprotected during 23.8.09 to 19.8.10, and throughout the time period whenever the service contract was made with the complainant company, the complainant has always provided quality service to the complainant to her complete satisfaction without there being any complaint from her side whatsoever.
The said water purifier machine was remained out of any maintenance service contract during h time period between 29.6.09 to 19.8.10.
After keeping the said water purifier machine so long un-serviced the complainant, made contact with the then service representative of the complainant company on 19.8.10 and entered into a fresh annual maintenance service contract for two years. The said service represent6ative while providing first service to the said machine, did everything he is required to do for providing proper service to a machine like replacement of old carbon and cuno candle with new one, cleaning of the said machine etc. After the first service the said water purifier machine was working and functioning in absolutely normal manner.
On 22.2.11 the service technician went to her place for first mandatory service of the machine and serviced the said machine properly by cleaning the machine, replacing the old carbon and cuno candle with a new dual cartridge filter etc. The said water purifier machine was working in absolutely normal manner and providing clean and healthy water for drinking. On 24.6.11 for the first time the complainant made a complaint that a slight sedimentation was observed by the said complainant in the water stored in a plastic bottle over a period of time. The service technician of o.p. without wasting any time on the very next date (25.6.11) went to her placed to attend the said complain and after thorough checking of the machine the said service technician found that the said machine was absolutely perfect and functioning in normal manner and the filtered water of the said machine was totally clean.
At the time of the said third mandatory service on 27.8.11 the said water purifier machine was working in absolutely normal manner and the running filtered water of the said machine was clean and pure of drinking. There was no complaining of any kind on the part of the complainant about the said machine at that period of time. Suddenly after fifteen days or so the said complainant contacted with the service technician and made complain that once again she observed a slight sedimentation in the water stored in a plastic bottle over a period of time. The said service technician went to her place and astonishingly found irrespective of his earlier instructions the said complainant stored water in a cold drink bottle. The service technician again checked the said machine thoroughly and found no problem in it and the said machine was totally perfect and the running filtered water was absolutely clean and safe for drinking. The said service technician once again requested the complainant that she should not store or keep filtered water in a cold drink bottle and if she continues to do so then any sort contamination can easily take place and for which sedimentation in water may occur in the said water after few days.
The entire family members are not drinking or using any liquid including water of any kind from any other sources in home and outside during all these period? Water borne diseases may come from that other source too. Even washing mouth or face, bathing in contaminated water can cause water borne diseases to any body. This allegation stands on no legs and is absolutely baseless and designed with a malafide intention to exact wrongful money from the complainant company. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant had purchased an ‘Aquaguard Compact’ model water purifier cum filter machine on 23.9.05 from the complainant company and that the initial warranty for the said product was for a period of one year from the date of purchase i.e. from 23.9.05 to 22.9.06. On expiry of the said initial warranty period the complainant entered into service contract with the complainant company for providing regular service of the aforesaid product purchased, which was renewed from time to time except for the time period between 29.6.09 to 19.8.10 when no annual maintenance contract was made by the complainant (though a free service was provided to her on request on 23.8.09) and the said water purifier machine remained unprotected during 23.8.09 to 19.8.10, and throughout the time period whenever the service contract was made with the complainant company, the complainant has always provided quality service to the complainant to her complete satisfaction without there being any complaint from her side whatsoever.
We further that on 22.2.11 the service technician went to her place for first mandatory service of the machine and serviced the said machine properly by cleaning the machine, replacing the old carbon and cuno candle with a new dual cartridge filter etc. The said water purifier machine was working in absolutely normal manner and providing clean and healthy water for drinking. On 24.6.11 for the first time the complainant made a complaint that a slight sedimentation was observed by the said complainant in the water stored in a plastic bottle over a period of time. The service technician of o.p. without wasting any time on the very next date (25.6.11) went to her placed to attend the said complain and after thorough checking of the machine the said service technician found that the said machine was absolutely perfect and functioning in normal manner and the filtered water of the said machine was totally clean.
It is seen from the record that at the time of the said third mandatory service on 27.8.11 the said water purifier machine was working in absolutely normal manner and the running filtered water of the said machine was clean and pure of drinking. There was no complaining of any kind on the part of the complainant about the said machine at that period of time. Suddenly after fifteen days or so the said complainant contacted with the service technician and made complain that once again she observed a slight sedimentation in the water stored in a plastic bottle over a period of time. The said service technician went to her place and astonishingly found irrespective of his earlier instructions the said complainant stored water in a cold drink bottle. The service technician again checked the said machine thoroughly and found no problem in it and the said machine was totally perfect and the running filtered water was absolutely clean and safe for drinking. The said service technician once again requested the complainant that she should not store or keep filtered water in a cold drink bottle and if she continues to do so then any sort contamination can easily take place and for which sedimentation in water may occur in the said water after few days.
On perusal of the record we find that the machine in question had some inherent defect and o.p. cannot shirk off its responsibility and we are of the views that o.p. had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Complainant shall return old machine to o.p. within 15 days after realization of the awarded amount.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
