BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.82/2018

DATED ON THIS THE 11^th January 2019

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

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

MEMBER

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to replace the defective water purifier or to refund the value of the water purifier i.e. Rs.13,075/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- litigation charges with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant purchased a water purifier from opposite party on 09.01.2017, for a sum of Rs.20,490/-.  A down payment of Rs.2,000/- was made and agreed to pay the balance in EMI at Rs.2,215/- and had paid Rs.11,075/-.  After usuage of about 8 months, noticed water leakage and filthy smell in the water.  The defect was informed to the opposite party and with a request to rectify the defects, handed over the water purifier to the opposite party on 12.09.2017.  Despite of repeated request and demands, the opposite party failed to return the duly rectified water purifier.  Aggrieved with the delay, vide legal notice dated 09.11.2017, demanded for replacement of the water purifier or in the alternative to refund the value of the water purifier with interest.  On failure to comply, the aggrieved filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.      The opposite party filed version and denied the allegations and submits, the complainant had purchased water purifier worth Rs.18,490/- and paid Rs.770/- only and also agreed to pay balance amount Rs.17,720/- in 8 EMIs.  But, paid 5 EMIs total amounting to Rs.11,075/- only.
4.     The opposite party submits that, the water purifier was working satisfactorily and all free services extended. The complainant had failed to pay the balance EMI amount, inspite of reminders.  The complainant owes a due for a sum of Rs.6,645/-.  On payment of the said amount, the complainant may collect the water purifier.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5.     Both side parties filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied on several documents.  Written arguments filed by both and heard the respective counsel.  Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
6.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite party, for not replacing the defective water purifier or to pay the value of the purifier with interest and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?
2.  What order?

7.    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 ::

8.    Point No.1:- The water purifier by name Dr.AUQA GUARD MAGNA HD RO +  UV (NXT), purchased from opposite party, worth Rs.20,490/- on 09.01.2017, started leaking after a lapse of about 8 months from the date of purchase.  The complainant had paid 5 EMI amount each Rs.2,215/-, total amounting to Rs.11,075/- only.  The water purifier was handed over to opposite party for rectification on 12.09.2017.  Unfortunately, the opposite party kept on dodging to return the water purifier to the complainant, in spite of repeated demands.  Hence, the aggrieved sought for the reliefs.
9.    The opposite party contended that, the complainant had purchased the water purifier valued at Rs.18,490/- and had paid only Rs.770/- and agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs.17,720/- in EMIs each for a sum of Rs.2,215/-.  The complainant had paid only 5 EMIs amounting to Rs.11,075/- and the balance EMI amount has not been paid.  As such, the complainant is entitled to receive back the water purifier on payment of balance amount of Rs.6,645/-.  The defects in the water purifier are denied as false and same were made with ulterior motive to spoil the reputation only.  Thereby, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. On perusal of the material on records, the complainant had purchased the water purifier on 09.01.2017.  The delivery challan disclosed that, the value of the purifier was Rs.18,490/- (inclusive of all taxes and duties).  Another document bearing No.192659, issued by opposite party, with particulars of payment and future payment schedule towards purchase of water purifier, established that, the complainant had paid Rs.2,000/- on 09.01.2017 through cheque and to pay the balance in 8 EMIs each for Rs.2,215/- amounting to Rs.17,720/-.  Based on the admissions by the opposite party, the complainant had already paid Rs.11,075/- towards balance amount.  Document titled as “product replacement form” dated 12.09.2017 established that the opposite party had received the water purifier from complainant with the reason for return of the same.  However, the document furnished by opposite party, relating to the particulars of payment established that, the complainant had not paid three EMI amount due on 15.07.2017, 15.08.2017 and 15.09.2017 and the reason quoted was “payment stopped by drawer”.  Thereby, it is established that, the complainant to pay 3 EMI amount to opposite party and the opposite party was in possessing of the water purifier.  Thereby, we opine that, on payment of the balance EMI amount, the complainant is entitled to receive the defect free water purifier from the opposite party.  As such, the allegation of deficiency in service by opposite party, is not established.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.      
11. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, the complaint filed by the complainant is to be allowed in part with the direction.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
2. The complainant is hereby directed to pay Rs.6,645/- to the opposite party, in 10 days.  Further, on receipt of entire amount from the complainant within stipulated period, the opposite party shall deliver defect free water purifier of similar make and features in 10 days to the complainant. Failing which opposite party shall pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day till compliance.   
3. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
4. 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 11^th January 2019)