Advocate Chandane for the complainant
Advocate D.R. Shinde for the Opponents
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date- 22nd April, 2014
This complaint is filed by consumer against service provider company for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is resident of Prabhat Road, Pune 411 004. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are the offices of Eureka Forbes Ltd., situated at Kolkatta, Mumbai and Pune. It is the case of complainant that, Opponent had displayed through their advertisements on various television channels, radio and newspaper as regards their Aqua Guard Compact Water Purifier product. She was impressed by the said advertisements and decided to purchase the said product i.e. Aqua Guard Compact Water Purifier. She had paid Rs.7590/- through cheque dated 18/08/2009 and purchased the said product. After installation of the said product, she had experienced pains in stomach. Hence, she took medical treatment. This fact was intimated to the Opponent. But they did not take care about the said product. Evenafter filing written complaint, Opponents did not give response. She was admitted in Niramay Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune for the period of 30/03/2010 to 02/04/2010 due to illness. It is the case of the complainant that, she fell ill due to impure water. Evenafter changing the parts of the Purifier by paying Rs.600/-, the Purifier was not upto the mark. Hence, she has filed present complaint for refund of price of Purifier, hospital expenses, medicines, conveyance charges, miscellaneous expenses as well as for compensation for mental and physical sufferings. In all, she has claimed compensation of Rs.36,471/-. She has also asked for Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
[2] Opponents have resisted the complaint by filing written version. They have denied the contents of complaint. According to them, the product is not defective. They were always ready and willing to provide proper services to the complainant. They have sent their representative from time to time for removing the defects. Complainant herself was not cooperative. She did not allow them to repair the product. Hence, she is not entitled for compensation on the ground of defective product, unfair trade practice and for deficiency in service. The Opponents have contended that, the water which was prepared from the product was tested in the laboratory and that was upto the mark. They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documentary evidence and hearing argument of both parties, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has established that the product which was sold by the Opponents was defective one ? | In the affirmative |
2 | Whether the complainant has proved that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative |
3 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
Reasons
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-
[4] It reveals from the record that, the complainant has purchased the product is known as ‘Aqua Guard Compact Water Purifier’ from the Opponents for Rs.7590/-. The bill of the said product is produced on record. It further reveals that, the complainant had informed to the Opponents from time to time in writing about the defect in the product, deficiency in service as well as about her illness. She has also produced the bills of Niramay Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune disclosing that she had spent Rs.5940/- for the medical treatment. She had also supplied the bills of medicines which were purchased by her during that period. This record itself is sufficient to say that the product which was supplied by the Opponents was defective. Evenafter making complaints from time to time the product was not repaired by the Opponents. According to the Opponents the water which was obtained from the filter which was sold out to the complainant was tested in the laboratory and that water is potable. Complainant has produced report dated 12/03/2013 of the Deputy Director of Health Services, State Public Health Laboratory, Pune 411 001 which indicates that the water filtered from the said product was not fit for drinking purpose. It is the opinion of this Forum that, the report of the Deputy Director of Health Services, State Public Health Laboratory shall prevails over the report which was obtained by the Opponent from the private laboratory. The medical evidence which is produced by the complainant is sufficient to draw an inference that she was suffering due to impure water. The procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 u/s 12 is a summary procedure. After taking into consideration, the available evidence before this Forum, it is the opinion of this Forum that, the complainant has established that the product which was purchased by her from the Opponents was defective and they have not provided proper service to the complainant. Hence, this Forum observes that the complainant has established the defects in the product as well as deficiency in service. After considering the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that, the complainant had spent expenses for medical treatment to the tune of Rs.6781/-. She is entitled to get that much amount from the Opponents. Complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.7590/- i.e the price of the product as well as compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental and physical sufferings and cost of the litigation.
This Forum answers the points accordingly and pass following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponents have supplied defective product and caused deficiency in service to the complainant.
3. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay amount of Rs.6781/- [Rupees Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty one only] to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay amount of Rs.7590/- [Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety only] to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
5. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay amount of Rs.5000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
6. Complainant is directed to return the product to the Opponents.
7. If the amount is not paid or deposited within the stipulated period, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
8. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
