Date of Filing:05.12.2020

Date of Disposal:29.04.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,  PRESIDENT

1. The Complainants have filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the Opposite party (herein after called as OP) alleging deficiency of service and direct the OP to pay Rs.61,690/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost apart from interest @ 24% p.a. till the date of order  and such other reliefs.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

    The complainant purchased Dr.Aquaguard Classic+ with Copper Maxx water purifier from the OP company on 21.11.2019 for a sum of Rs.11,190/- and he also paid said amount to the OP. After purchase of the said system, when the complainant started using water purifier the outflow of the water came very slow and upon which  when the complainant lodged a complaint on 22.01.2020 to the customer care of OP. Upon the complaint the OP service men have visited and have cleaned the water purifier and rectified the technical error. After sometime the complainant once again faced same problem with the water purifier  and when it was complained to the OP once again, the service men visited and tried to fix the technical issue of the water purifier. This issue with water purifier has repeatedly occurred for some period. Even after attending the complaint the OP Company have miserably failed to rectified the technical issue in the water filter. Upon which when the complainant approach the OP for the replacement of the said water purifier and OP neither  rectified mistake nor replaced the new water purifier to the complainant as requested. Upon which the complainant was forced to purchase for another water purifier of different company by making some additional amount. As the water purifier which was purchased from the OP became unusable for the technical issue and there after aggrieved by the act and action of the OP the complainant was forced to initiate the present complaint and sought for the relief of refund of the said amount along with such other reliefs as prayed in the complaint.   

3.  Notice to the OP duly served, OP represented by counsel and filed version and affidavit  along with several documents.

4. The complainant has filed chief examination affidavit by reiterating the complaint allegations and also filed relevant  documents in support of their contention.

5. Heard arguments and the matter is posted for orders.

6. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1       :       Partly in Affirmative

Point No.2       :       As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:- From the perusal of complaint averments and also by considering the chief examination affidavit filed by the complainant, it is found that the complainant purchased Dr.Aquaguard Classic+ with Copper Maxx water purifier from the OP company on 21.11.2019 for a sum of Rs.11,190/- and he also paid said amount to the OP. After purchase of the said system when the complainant started using water purifier the outflow of the water came very slow and upon which when the complainant lodged a complaint on 22.01.2020 to the customer care of OP and upon the complaint the OP service men have visited and have cleaned the water purifier and rectified the technical error. After sometime the complainant once again faced same problem with the water purifier  and when it was complained to the OP once again, the service man visited and tried to fix the technical issue of the water purifier. This issue with water purifier has repeatedly occurred for some period. Even after attending the complaint the OP company have miserably failed to rectified the technical issue in the water filter. Upon which when  the complainant approach the OP for the replacement of the said water purifier and OP neither  rectified mistake nor replaced the new water purifier to the complainant as requested. Upon which the complainant was forced to purchase another water purifier of different company by making some additional amount. As the water purifier which was purchased from the OP became unusable for the technical issue and there after aggrieved by the act and action of the OP the complainant was forced to initiate the present complaint and sought for the relief of refund of the said amount along with such other reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

9. The OP filed written version, wherein they have denied  the entire complaint allegations and also denied any deficiency of service on their part, during the course of service. The specific contention of the OP is that due to insufficient water supply to the water purifier  the system was not working properly. There is no technical glitch in the said water purifier as alleged by the complainant. By contending the same they denied any deficiency on their side and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. From the perusal of the complaint allegations and also on the contention of both parties, it is observed by the Commission that there is a transaction between the complainant and OP in so far as the purchase of  water purifier from the OP company and the complainant has paid sum of Rs.11,190/- and there is no dispute between both parties in respect of purchase of the product. When the contention of the OP is not supported by any expert report on the point of issue. Even though the OP contended that the water purifier which was purchased by the complainant is not working properly due to insufficient water supply to the said system. This contention of OP is not at all supported by any expert report on the point of issue. The OP has merely contended that the technical glitch in the water purifier is not due to the  failure of the said system.  It is for the above said reason when the contention of the OP is not supported by any technical expert report. The contention of the OP  remains as mere denial of the complaint allegations in order to avoid and escape any probable liability, which may be casted upon the OP in the complaint. When the contention of the OP is not substantiated by any report. The contention  of the OP cannot be considered on the merits of the complaint. On the other hand, the allegations of the complaint appears to be proved facts in the absence of any report from the OP side. On perusal of the annexure documents produced, it is crystal clear that there is a technical issued in the said water purifier. When same repeatedly same issue arises in the system and same was brought to the knowledge of the OP, the OP miserably failed to rectify the technical issue in the water purifier. On these facts, it is apparent from the face of the record, annexure documents also supports the same. When such being the case, there is clear cut act case of deficiency on the part of OP, for which they are held  liable to pay the legitimate claim of complainant.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 Partly in Affirmative.

11. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the Complainant U/s.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is allowed in part.

2. OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,190/- along with interest at 6%p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint  till the payment is made.
3. OP is directed pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service to the complainant together with cost of litigation of  Rs.5,000/- within 45 days from this order, failing which OP is liable to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 6%p.a from the date of order till payment is made.
4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 29^th April 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

       (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

                 MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Gopikrishna-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Sri Manjunath.C.K

Documents produced by the OP:

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*