Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/12/2017

Ch.Swarna Latha, W/o C.Satyanarayana, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Ltd., Rep by its Authorized Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sekhar Babu

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 13.02.2017

Order Date:01.12.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.12/2017

 

 

Between

 

 

C.H.Swarnalatha,

W/o. C.Satyanarayana,

House Maker, Aged about 44 years,

D.No.18-1-727C,  New No.18-37-S9-827, Bhavani Nagar,

Tirupati Urban Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

            B1/B2, 701, 7^th Floor, Marathon Innova,

            Marathon Nextgen, Lower Paral,

            Mumbai.

 

2.         Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Manager,

            D.No.16-2-345, Swatantra Park Street,

            Trunk Road,

            Pogathota,

            Nellore.

 

3.         Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Branch Manager,

            D.No.10-13-566/1, Reddy & Reddy Colony,

            Near Saraswathi Vidyanikethan,

            Tirupati.

 

4.         Hemanth Enterprises,

            Rep. by its Head Service Men,

            Authorised Service Centre for Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

            D.No.12-1-69, Yadava Street,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 16.11.17 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Sekhar Babu, counsel for complainant, and Sri.C.Balakrishna Naidu, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections –12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 4 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to replace the water purifier in the place of defective one or to refund its cost of Rs.23,190/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 13.02.2015 till realization, 2) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 4 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the complaint and for such other or further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant purchased Eureka Forbes Aquaguard Geneus Water Purifier  for Rs.23,190/-, by issuing 10 anti dated cheques for Rs.2319/- each on 13.02.2015, under receipt No.117 with serial No.3008819 dt:13.02.2015 from opposite party No.2. Opposite parties        3 and 4 have installed the unit on the same day and issued user manual. Warranty is given for one year, but the unit was not worked properly from the date of its installation due to its defect. The opposite parties have changed another unit with serial No.3009173 in the 2^nd week of March 2015. The complainant cleared the loan to opposite party No.2, but invoice was not given by the opposite parties. The last free service to the unit was done by the servicemen of opposite party No.4 on 29.02.2016 at 6 p.m. under warranty period. During the course of service, the servicemen of opposite party No.4, negligently handle the unit by hitting hardly on the filters, because of which the unit was not working properly. The complainant informed the same to opposite party No.4 and asked to rectify the problem. The servicemen told that the filters are not working and they were to be changed in order to run the machine properly. That the complainant did not face any problem prior to last free service referred to above. Opposite parties 2 to 4 promised to change the filters shortly, but failed to do so.

3.  That after giving complaint on 08.03.2016 and 21.03.2016 to the customer care of opposite party No.1, and also a letter through register post dt:06.04.2016 calling upon the opposite parties 1 to 4 either to rectify the mistake or to replace the unit with a new one or to refund the cost of the unit in a sum of Rs.23,190/- with interest at 24% p.a., the servicemen came to the house of the complainant on 27.04.2016 and replaced the filters with old used one. When the complainant questioned the servicemen for using old filters, they gave evasive replay and the unit is also not working properly and the same was mentioned specifically in the service request card in remarks column. The complainant again addressed a letter on 20.06.2016 to all the opposite parties 1 to 4 informing them about non-functioning of the unit and requested them to refund the cost of the unit with interest at 24% p.a. Though all the opposite parties received the said letter, they did not either gave reply or refund the cost of the unit, thus the opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

4.  Opposite party No.4 filed the written version and the same is adopted by opposite parties 1 to 3, admitting that the complainant has purchased the water purifier from the opposite parties company for Rs.23,190/-, and issued 10 cheques, and has taken the purifier in serial NNo.3009918 on 13.02.2015 with a warranty of one year. That the complainant’s water purifier was replaced with a new water purifier under serial number 3009173 in the 2^nd week of March 2015. The capacity of the cartridge is only 6000 litres. The opposite parties company at the request of the complainant purified the filter on 21.08.2015 and on 29.02.2016.  Material worth of Rs.4450/- were fixed to the purifier on 27.04.2016, but the complainant did not pay the said amount of Rs.4450/- to the opposite parties. The contract between the complainant and opposite parties is from 26.02.2015 to 25.02.2016. The complainant got issued legal notices on 08.03.2016, 21.03.2016, 06.04.2016, 27.04.2016, 20.06.2016 and 04.01.2017 and defamed the opposite party company. The documents dt:21.08.2015 and 27.02.2016 shows that the complainant used the water purifier. Since the warranty is expired, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay Rs.4450/- to opposite parties and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

5.  In support of the complainant case, complainant herself filed her evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. For the opposite parties, opposite party No.4 (Sathya Narayana) filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments, which are part and parcel of the record. Heard the counsel for both parties.

6.  Now the points for consideration are:-

i).  Whether there is manufacturing defect in the water purifier supplied by the

      opposite parties?       

ii).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties    

      1 to 4?

iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

iv)  To what relief?

7.  Point No.(i):-  It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased Eureka Forbes Aqua Guard Water Purifier for Rs.23,190/- from opposite party No.2, and she has given ten cheques for Rs.2319/- each under receipt No.117 dt:13.02.2015. The serial number of the unit is 3008819 and it was installed on the same day i.e. on 13.02.2015 with warranty of one year from 13.02.2015 to 12.02.2016. But on the date of installation itself the unit was found not working properly. As the said water purifier bearing No.3008819 was found defective, opposite parties 3 and 4 have installed the same with a new water purifier bearing serial number 3009173 in the     2^nd week of March 2015.

8.  That the complainant alleging that the opposite parties did not give invoice for the unit. That the complainant has cleared the debt of Rs.23,190/-, which is the cost of the unit (not denied by the opposite parties). Unless the 1^st unit bearing No.3008819 suffers from manufacturing defect, the opposite parties ought not to have replaced the same with a new one within a month of its installation. Ex.A2 user manual, at page.10 reveals that the unit number 3008819 is defective and changed the unit with another unit (water purifier) bearing No.3009173, date of such replacement was not mentioned. Ex.A1 final receipt 117 dt:13.02.2015 issued by Eureka Forbes Limited No.013189, Nellore (O.P.2) did not disclose for what purpose opposite party No.2 has collected 10 cheques for Rs.2319/- each. It did not disclose anything about water purifier and simply passed on the receipt, which is quite unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties because Ex.A1 is passed on to the complainant without disclosing the details of the unit / water purifier supplied or purpose for collecting the cheques i.e. to say that opposite party No.2 has issued Ex.A1 suppressing the details of the water purifier supplied to the complainant. It is the right of the consumer / complainant to know the name of the unit, quality of the unit, standard, grade, composition, style or model of the unit. The receipt should disclose the nature of the goods sold, trade mark and its name and unit number, and cash received in detail (in figures and words).

9.  Non-disclosure of the particulars of the goods sold in the receipt under Ex.A1, non-furnishing the bill for the goods sold in favour of the complainant, non-supply of voucher / invoice for either the purifier bearing No.3008819 or another purifier bearing No.3009173 and also supply / fixing of un-specified filters, which admittedly do not contain the manufacturing date and expiry date, certainly amounts to unfair trade practice. It is the right of the consumer to know about the name and trade mark of the goods purchased or to be purchased, its standards, quality, quantity, grade, price, sponsorship, performance, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods have, and warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of the product. If the service provider or seller of the goods violates any of these conditions, it amounts to unfair trade practice.

10. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is enacted to promote and protect the rights of the consumers, such as – a) the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property; b) the right to be informed about the quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices; c) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices; d) the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers’ interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums; e) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and f) right to consumer education      

11.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties while advancing arguments contended that the capacity of the water purifier is only 6000 liters and the complainant cannot use the machine continuously and more than 6000 liters, and further contended that as the warranty period expired, the opposite parties are not liable to attend on the unit in case of any repairs. These arguments are totally unsustainable. In this regard, we have to say that, the opposite party who sold water purifier (goods) has to promise the consumer 1) warranty or guarantee of a product or of any goods or services and 2) promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result, as contemplated under Section-2(i)(r) of C.P.Act. The word ‘defect’ is defined under Section-2(i)(f) of C.P.Act 1986 as follows:

‘defect’ means any fault, imperfection or short-coming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract, express or implied or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

                                                         

So, in the case on hand, Eureka Forbes Aquaguard Geneus water purifier bearing No.3008819 supplied to the complainant on 13.02.2015 by opposite party No.2, is found defective and it was replaced by another new water purifier bearing No.3009173 in the 2^nd week of March 2015, which was functioned properly till the filters therein were changed on 27.04.2016, while changing the filters, the servicemen of the opposite parties mishandled the filters by hitting them hard, as such from the date of fixing of those filters the water purifier was not working properly, and the filters also, according to complainant are old one and used one, so supplying the defective goods, replacing the same on finding that it was defective one and later changed the filters with old and used one and issuing the receipt under Ex.A1 without furnishing the particulars / details of the goods supplied, and without disclosing the purpose for collecting 10 cheques for Rs.2319/- each towards the cost of the goods supplied, and changing the filters worth of Rs.4450/- at free of cost as per Ex.B2 and claiming the said amount of Rs.4450/-, subsequently all these facts shows that the opposite parties not only supplied the defective goods i.e. the goods which were having manufacturing defect but also adopting unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section-2(i)(r) of C.P.Act 1986, by the opposite parties. Therefore, under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is manufacturing defect in the Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Geneus water purifier supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant, and that the opposite parties also adopted unfair trade practice. Accordingly this point is answered.

12.  Point No.(ii):-  In order to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, first they have attended on the Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Geneus water purifier bearing No.3008819 supplied on 13.02.2015 and they found it as defective and it was replaced with another unit bearing No.3009173 in the 2^nd week of March 2015, when it was also found necessary for changing filters, the opposite parties have supplied filters / cartridges / candles, while fixing them the servicemen of the opposite parties mishandled the unit by hitting hard, consequently those filters were also became un-functioning. Ex.B1 dt:27.04.2016 shows that filters - no MRP and manufacturing date. The opposite parties did not assign any reason as to why such defective units were supplied and defective filters were fixed. Inspite of the contents of Exs.B1 and B2 under which it is mentioned that those filters were supplied free of cost, again the opposite parties are claiming the said amount of Rs.4450/- as if it was due by the complainant and that complainant intentionally avoiding to pay that amount. Subsequently, the complainant addressed letters to the opposite parties number of times i.e. on 27.04.2016, 20.06.2016 and 04.01.2017 admittedly, inspite of it, the opposite parties did not attend the service and rectified the defects that were found in the unit as well as filters fixed therein, and the complainant contending that the opposite parties have gave evasive replies and finally they did not turn-up. Surprisingly, the opposite parties have mentioned the serial number of the water purifier supplied on 13.02.2015 as 3009918 as against its number mentioned in Ex.A2 at page.10. So, it seems that the opposite parties are not aware of the original number of the water purifier supplied on 13.02.2015. Infact no water purifier bearing No.3009918 was supplied to the complainant. All these aspects clearly establishes that the opposite parties are not vigilant enough over the goods they have supplied and that they are negligent enough in attending on the goods supplied whenever there arose problems and to rectify those problems. Thus the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Being the service provider, the opposite parties ought to have attended on the unit supplied to the complainant / consumer and rectify the defects that arose in functioning of the water purifier. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.   

13. Point No.(iii):-  In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, as the complainant has established that there is manufacturing defect in the water purifier supplied by the opposite parties and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the opposite parties also have adopted unfair trade practice i.e. without furnishing any bill or invoice for the goods purchased by the complainant, in order to prove the sale and supply of the Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Geneus water purifier in favour of the complainant, and as the opposite parties failed to attend on the defective goods supplied to rectify the mistakes developed therein and see that purifier shall work properly to the satisfaction of the consumer. The opposite parties also violated the rights of the consumer / complainant. Therefore, this Forum has to come to the rescue of the consumer to protect his rights. Therefore, in our view, the complainant / consumer is entitled for the refund of cost of the Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Geneus water purifier supplied by the opposite parties, and the opposite parties are also liable to compensate the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

14.  Point No.(iv):-  In view of our holding on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that the Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Geneus water purifiers supplied by the opposite parties are suffered from manufacturing defect, that the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects that were developed in the unit and they committed not only deficiency in service but also adopted unfair trade practice and complaint therefore is to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.23,190/- (Rupees twenty three thousand one hundred and ninety only) towards cost of the Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Geneus water purifier with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of its purchase i.e. 13.02.2015 till realization. That the opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for supplying defective goods (Eureka Forbes Aquagaurd Geneus water purifier) and causing mental agony to the complainant, and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for adopting unfair trade practice by the opposite parties, and opposite parties 1 to 4 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- and amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards deficiency in service and for adopting unfair trade practice by the opposite parties, a total amount of Rs.35,000/- (25,000 + 10,000) shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization. While complying with the orders, opposite parties 1 to 4 are at liberty to take back the defective water purifier that was laying idle with the complainant under proper acknowledgement.                  

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 1^st day of December, 2017.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                                                  

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  C.H. Swaranalatha (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sathya Narayanam (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Eureka Forbes Limited Receipt No.117 with serial No.013189, Dt: 13.02.2015 issued by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th opposite party.
	User manual book in Original.
	Photo copy of complainants made to the 1st opposite party of customer care centre. Dt: 08.03.2016 and 21.03.2016.
	Photo copy of letter issued by the complainant to all opposite parties and postal receipts (4 in original).  Dt: 06.04.2016.
	Postal acknowledgements (3) from the opposite parties in Original.
	Photo copy of letter issued by the complainant to all opposite parties and postal receipts (4 in original). Dt: 20.06.2016.
	Postal acknowledgements (2 in original and 2 in attested copies) from the opposite party.
	Office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to all opposite parties and postal receipts (4 in original). Dt: 04.01.2017.
	Postal acknowledgement cards (3 in original) from opposite parties.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Service Request Activity Report. Dt: 27.04.2016.
	Original copy of Aquaguard (RO) Service Card (Card No.3103). Customer Code: 1011792681. Service Visited Dates: 21.08.2015, 29.02.2016, 27.04.2016.

 

 

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-  

                                                                                                                      President

  

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

  

   

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.