BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 4^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to refund sum of Rs.14,940/- towards the cost of defective product and Rs.2,450/- towards the filter and chip replacement charges collected by the OP, to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and legal cost as this commission deems fit.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant has approached Dr. Aquaguard NRich UV bearing ID No.1231010196034950 (hereafter referred as the product) from OP on 20.11.2019. Complainant has paid Rs.14,490/- to the said product, OP has issued invoice bearing No.153150045997. Complainant stated that while approaching the product sales team of OP as represented about the said product for its long life and reliability and about its warranty for 1 year. Complainant stated that the said product has promoted by brand ambassador Madhuri Dixith with false and misleading advertisement about the product which is deceptive practice of business as alleged by complainant.

3. Complainant stated in his complaint that within 2 days after the purchase of the said Aquaguard stopped functioning, complainant has raised complaint for its rectification with the OP. OP has referred its technician for rectification. OP technician informed complainant that it was under warranty and was no requirement of payment for the service fees. In the month of September 2020, red light started flicking on the product, indication that service is required. Thereafter complainant called OP’s helpline on 27.09.2020, technician of OP has visited the complainants place for the service purpose. As per his observation, the chip and filter of the said product needed to be replaced and it costs around Rs.2,450/- for the replacement and fixation charges. Accordingly he paid the amount and get it repaired. After few months of usage in January 2021, again the red light started flickering and the product stopped working. Again the complainant has raised complaint with OP but there is no response from OP side.  With the help of OP’s helpline complainant raised complaint on 24.01.2021, even after the assurances for sending technician to their spot but did not sent anybody from OP side and not rectified the said product. After 11^th day of complaint OP sent technician with the same version of chip and filter to be replaced which is damaged and the technician also advised the complainant to take Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with OP for the product service instead of paying for the service and visiting charges to the technicians. But complainant did not accept AMC.

4. Complainant stated that on 25.04.2021 again the same problem raised with the product and the same has been attended by technician of OP on 28.04.2021. When the complainant faces problem repeatedly with the product with the intention to resolve it permanently with the technician of OP, technician replied that the chip were designed faulty and OP does not sale chips separately and the chip have to be taken up along with filter and he also stated that in case of any defect in the chip, reused chips are installed for the customers. The company is making unlawful profit out of AMC. These all representation made the company to refuse the AMC but OP executives insisted to take Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) to gain money out of it.

5. Complainant alleged that the represented trouble with the product several times, he raised complaint with the OP but not resolved the problem. On 31.07.2021 complainant received E-mail from one Deepa of OP company stated that issues has been addressed and closed. Complainant alleged that he raised complaint with the OP company several times unilaterally closed complaint without resolutions. After the receipt of E-mail complainant received the call from the Kolkata promising him that they would take defective product with replacement of new one, owing the continuous failure in chip. Subsequently complainant received call from sales team of Bangalore insisting the complainant to purchase new product and leave the old Aquaguard as it is. By depriving the good water for drinking purpose complainant and his family suffered mental agony, distress, inconvenience and loss of time and money in past months which caused deficiency of service and negligent act of OP, by means of false and misleading advertisement with the help of celebrities. Complainant seeking compensation from OP company for the loss of mental agony.

6. Complainant stated that OP falsely represented the complainant that product was about such a standard quality, grade and composition by giving the fake certificate. Hence complainant caused legal notice to OP for which OP failed to reply to the legal notice and fail to rectify the product, without any resolutions unilaterally, they closed the complaints raised by the complainant. Hence he approached this commission for the relief as he sought supra.

7. OP represented through its counsel filed its statement of objections stating that complainant filed this complaint with malafide intention to extract money and defame the goodwill of OP brand, he contented that the complaint is not maintainable under the act, it is frivolous and devoid of any merits have not been substantiated by any cogent evidence to prove their allegations.

8. OP contends that immediately after the complaint filed by the complainant OP sent their technician to attend the problem with the product. OP admitted that he received amount for the replacement of chip and filter but not charged for the service they contended. OP denied that the technician of OP has forced them to take Annual Maintenance Contract, only informed about the AMC for the benefit of complainant which is not compulsory. Therefore OP alleged this is frivolous and concocted complaint, when consumer also refused to get the product repair and asked for refund of the product. OP stated that complainant was informed to immediate service and also replacement of the product in case any major issue is found in the inspection of the product, complainant sought for some time to make his decision, OP tried to contact complainant multiple times, but complainant did not give his decision. Hence the replacement is not made. Therefore OP stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part and prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

9. The case is set down to lead evidence of both parties. Accordingly GPA holder of complainant adduced affidavit evidence along with 20 documents including certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. In spite of sufficient opportunities given to OP, did not lead its evidence, not filed any documents. Both the parties filed their written arguments, with decision we perused the materials on record.

10. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

11.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

12. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

13. After going through the pleadings and the documents placed by both parties, its not disputed that complainant has purchased Dr. Aquaguard NRich UV water purifier of OP brand on 21.11.2019, in vide product ID No. 1231010196034950. For that OP has issued tax invoice for Rs.13,490/- which is at Ex,P.1. By perusing the documents produced, whatsapp chats and the E-mail communication between complainant and OP, discloses that the complainant has faced problem with the said Aquaguard purifier since from the beginning of installation and the same has been brought to the notice with the Op by raising complaint with the helpline and also with the sales team of OP. Initially OP technician has attended the defective product, immediately after the complaint raised by the complainant and informed that the said product has defect because of dis-functioning of chip and filter which is to be replaced. He also informed that the chip and filter would be charged for the replacement of components but the service charged is not required to pay due to the product is under warranty. Since the water purifier is most essential one for life of complainant and his family members. Considering the inconvenience caused to him, he agreed for the replacement of chip and filter, and he paid Rs. 2,450/- towards the replacement of components on 01.10.2020 i.e., within 1 year of warranty which is at Ex.P.7. As per the company’s policy, when the product carries 1 year of the warranty OP company has to replace it without any charges for the components. More so complainant has suffered with the defective product even after the replacement of components by paying charges. He raised complaint with the OP and its sales team when further the complaint raised, subsequently the technician who attended the product have informed that complainant has to take AMC facility from OP company for the annual maintenance of the product otherwise he has to pay for the services charges. When they insisted for the AMC complainant refused and alleged that OP company is not taking proper care about rectification of product they only insisting for taking AMC for the unlawful gain and extract money from the consumers.

14. It is pertinent to note that after perusing the complaint, complainant has raised his complaint more than 3-4 times with OP, more so OP has not rectified the defective product and did not made product in good condition. Later one of the executive from OP company of Kolkata has promised to replace the defective product with the new one but sales team of OP at Bangalore, not agreed to replace for the new product. Though complainant has caused legal notice to OP on 18.10.2021 calling upon OP to refund the amount paid towards product with compensation of 10 lakhs. Even after the service of legal notice to OP, did not come forward to rectify the product or refund the amount as he claimed. By perusing the E-mails and its replies that OP has admitted the inconvenience caused to complainant about the defect in the product and the complainant raised complaints many times, it exhibits OP has not rendered quality service to rectify the same. Though the product was under warranty period OP neither replaced the product when it was under warranty nor taken proper resolution to the defect which is causing problem/inconvenience to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP.

15. In case OP is genuine with its act, OP could come forward to rectify the product without charging for any components or service when the product has 1 year of warranty. OP did not take proper action to rectify the same. OP filed its statement of objection on the date of proceedings but did not lead its evidence. OP not filed any documentary evidences to prove its contention. Hence complainant proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP caused inconvenience to his family till now. The defective product still lying with complainant without any fuction. For that OP has to compensate the complainant by re-paying the amount, he paid towards the Dr. Aquaguard Water Purifier with interest. For denying rectification though its in under warranty and made the complainant to get good drinking water from outside by investing on that which definitely caused mental agony and financial loss to complainant and his family. OP has to compensate with the compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.

16. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act is hereby allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to repay Rs.13,490/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of purchase, and to repay Rs.2,450/- towards replacement of chip and filter to the complainant after collecting the defective water purifier from the complainant.
3. OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP is directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on Award amount from the date of order till realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 4^th day of OCTOBER, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL