BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.820-2015

DATED ON THIS THE 16^th September 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C,

Member,

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging the deficiency in service and seeking a direction to refund the value of the water purifier along with Rs.4,350/- paid towards AMC package service and to pay Rs.30/- per day, from 01.12.2015 to till disposal towards expenses incurred to purchase of drinking water and Rs.50,000/- compensation for the mental agony and such other reliefs.
2.     The aquaguard water purifier purchased by the complainant has developed problems after the lapse of one year and during the subsistence of AMC package service about 7 to 8 times every month.  The opposite party service personnel replaced the spare parts with substandard spare parts, as such, the problems in the purifier could not be removed satisfactorily.  The complainant purchased drinking water everyday by spending Rs.30/-, which caused financial loss, hardship and mental agony, hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite parties filed common version and admits the sale of aquaguard water purifier.  The opposite party provided a AMC package service to the water purifier on payment of Rs.4,350/- for a period of one year, which includes two free services and 3 free replacement of spare parts during the AMC period on the usuage of 6000 lts.  The opposite party denies the allegation of replacement of substandard spare parts.  Hence, denying the allegations, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The complainant filed his affidavit to establish the facts with documents.  The opposite party filed its affidavit in lieu of evidence.  Both parties filed written arguments and submitted oral arguments.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
5.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not rectifying the problems in the water purifier satisfactorily and replacement of substandard spare parts and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant purchased the aquaguard water purifier from opposite party, by paying Rs.15,000/- on 31.12.2013.  The purifier performance was good for a period of one year.  As per the suggestions of opposite party serviceman, the complainant took an AMC service package for a period of one year, by paying Rs.4,350/- which inclusive of free replacement of spare parts and free services.  During AMC service package period the water purifier developed problems repeatedly on several occasions, which was rectified by the opposite party servicemen.  The complainant alleged the cause for repeated problems was due to replacement of substandard spare parts.  Again the opposite party demanded for a sum of Rs.4,400/- for replacement of many spare parts as the same were not properly functioning.  Complaint was lodged with opposite party’s service wing and also caused a legal notice, calling upon to remove the defects in the purifier, but in vain.  The complainant was forced to buy drinking water everyday by paying Rs.30/- from the date of defects found in the water purifier, which caused mental agony, hardship and inconvenience.  Hence, alleged the deficiency in service and sought for reliefs.
8.    The opposite party admitted the sale of water purifier and receipt  of Rs.4,350/- towards AMC package service from complainant for a period of one year with an assurance of two free services and replacement of certain parts or the flow of 6000 lts of water during the AMC package period.  The opposite party denied the allegations of use of substandard spare parts has caused the problems in the purifier and such allegations are made to spoil the reputation and to make wrongful gain only.  The opposite party contended that it has provided more free services and replaced the spare parts thrice.  The opposite party contended that, the complainant has used more than 6000 lts for purification, which caused problem with the purifier.  Therefore, opposite party contended that there is no deficiency in service and it has not used any substandard spare parts.  As such, opposite party has not comitted any deficiency in service and not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant, and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
9.    Admittedly, the complainant purchased the aquaguard water purifier from opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the same was working satisfactorily for one year.  The opposite party offered the AMC package service to complainant for a consideration of Rs.4,350/- with free service and replacement of spare parts during the AMC period.  The AMC terms also includes the outflow of 6000 lts only in a year from the purifier. The problems developed and continued repeatedly on many occasions, same has been satisfactorily resolved by opposite parties, many more time, than promised.  At the end of the AMC service package, the complainant alleged the use of substandard spare parts and insisted for replacement of new water purifier or refund of value of the purifier.  The complainant also submitted that he was buying drinking water by paying Rs.30/- every day from 01.12.2015, but the same is not accepted, in absence of evidence.  The complainant has not placed any evidence to establish that opposite party has used substandard spare parts, mere bold allegations are not acceptable.   However, the complainant has used the water purifier for about two years, as such, the demand for refund of value of the purifier is not justified.  The complainant established that the water purifier suffered problems and the same attended by opposite party servicemen on many occasions.  Hence, certainly there is some defects in the water purifier, which has not been satisfactorily resolved by opposite party, which caused hardship, inconvenience mental agony to the complainant and the same needs to be compensated suitably by opposite parties.  Accordingly, point No.1 for consideration partly in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to replace the defective spare parts with new, defect free parts, by collecting the value of the same.  The opposite party is not entitled to receive service charges from the complainant, within 30 days of this order.  In default, the opposite party shall pay penalty of Rs.50/- per day until compliance.
3. The opposite party shall pay Rs.3,000/- compensation for the mental agony, hardship and deficiency in service caused and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  In default, the opposite party shall pay interest at 12% p.a. on the total sum of Rs.5,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint (i.e. from 23.12.2015), until payment to the complainant.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 16^th September 2016)