SRI. SAJEESH.K.P   : MEMBER

The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against OPs to return Rs.9050/- and Rs.21990/- being the consideration paid for the contract and the purchase price of the water purifier.

Complaint in brief

            According to the complaint, on 21/10/2013 complainant had purchased “Aquaguard Geneus Water Purifier” on the basis of various advertisements, for an amount of Rs.21990/-.  The water purifier was installed at complainant’s house by technician of OP No.1 and the periodic Services were done.  On the advise of OP No.1 complainant signed a Contract of Annual maintenance of the water purifier with OPO for a period from 22/02/2017 to 21/02/2019  by fixing a consideration of Rs.9050/-.  The contract is signed for free replacement of consumables and periodic service during the contract period.  According to OP at the time of purchase of water purifier it is stated to complainant that periodic service to the water purifier is essential.  But after signing the contract on 22/02/2017 no periodic service was done to the water purifier even after receiving payment of Rs. 9050/- towards annual service.  The OP omitted to responded to the earnest service requests of complainant.  Hence this complaint.

            After filing the complaint, notice was issued to both OP.  OPs received the notice and entered appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly.

Version in brief

            The OPs denies the averment except those admit hereunder.  The OP contended that after entering into the contract, the receipt has to punch into the system network of OP.  So as the OP will get information regarding ‘AMC’ (additional maintanance contract).  The OP has already extended the warranty from 13/11/2018 to 12/11/2020.  Moreover the OPs are ready to change filter and ready to replace the consumable items and ready to comply the contract executed between complainant and OP and also ready to provide ‘missing services’.  The OP contended that there is no deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Due to the rival contentions of both parties following issues are framed.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

In order to answer the issues, the commission called for evidence from both parties.  Complainant has chosen to produce chief affidavit and documents which was marked as Ext. A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice which was issued by OP No.1 to complainant dated 21/10/2013, Ext.A2 is the invoice cum contract receipt which was issued by OP to complainant dated 20/02/2017, Ext.A3 I s the mobile printout between  complainant and OP.  Complainant produced power off attorney deed.  Husband of complainant is examined as Pw1.  OP has no oral or documentary evidence.

Issue No.1

            On the perusal of Ext.A1, the purchase of Aqua Guard Water purifier worth Rs.21990/- is true and the purchase is not denied by OP.  Hence there is no dispute with regard to the purchase or cost of the product between parties.  Ext. A2, the contract receipt by complainant to OP, and payment ofRs.9050/- by complainant to OP is not disputed and hence it is proved intact.  Ext.A3, copy of the reply of OP to service request made by complainant to OP. As per the service request, it is clear that complainant had made request of service and OP also admitted in their version that they will provide missing services.  During the cross examination complainant deposed that there is no deficiency in service from the part of OP during the warranty period.   After the execution of AMC (additional maintenance contract) the OP defaulted in providing service.  The complainant deposed that he is not aware of punching the receipt in order to get the extended service stated in the version.  Moreover, the OP admitted in their version that they are ready and fulfill to carry out the terms of contract and ready to extend the warranty.  From those it is clear that there is deficiency in service from the part of OP.  Hence issue NO.1 is answered in favour of complainant.

Issue No.2

            Even after the earnest    repeated demands of service, the OP neglected to provide eservice to complainant and OP 1 violated the terms of contract even after the payment of Rs.9050/-.  Moreover the complainant has to wait to find a solution to get his defect cured until a notice sent from the commission to OP.  So the period which complainant suffered without service of water purifier should be compensated by OP.  Hence issue No.2 is answered in favour of complainant.

            In the result complainant is allowed in part.  The opposite parties are severally and jointly liable to provide proper service and also to provide extended warranty to complainant.  In default OPs are severally and jointly directed to remit Rs.9050/- which was already collected from complainant.  It is also directed to pay compensation Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- as the cost of litigation severally and jointly OPs to complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the previous of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exhibits

A1                   - Retail invoice dated 21/10/2013

A2                   - Invoice cum Contract receipt dated 22/02/2017

A3(series)      - Mobile print out

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Senior Superintendent