Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/794

Jagjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.794 of 15.11.2016

Date of order          :   05.09.2017

Jagjit Singh, 43 years s/o Surinder Singh r/o 32, Gopal Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

Complainant

Versus

 

1.Eureka Forbes Limited, B1/B2, 701, 7^th Floor, Marathan, Innova Marathon Next Gen.Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through authorized signatory.

2.Eureka Forbes Limited, 92, 2^nd Floor, Surya Kiran Complex, Mall Road, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

3.Eureka Forbes Limited, Divisional Sale Office-BXXI-14627, Dholewal Chowk, G.T.Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ludhiana through authorized signatory Chander Parkesh & Danish.

Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :           Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OPs                          :           Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.              Complainant for getting rid from unhygienic/contaminated water supplied by M.C.Ludhiana after visiting the premises of OP3 on 21.9.2016 purchased new R.O. of worth of Rs.12,990/- through receipt bearing Sr.No.18185 dated 21.9.2016. At that time, it was disclosed that level of TDS(Total Dissolved Solids) of purified water through purchased R.O. will be within the normal limits, despite the fact that the supplied water through M.C.Ludhiana was giving TDS in excess of 375 PPM. Installation of seven liter Magnetized water filter/Water purifier namely Dr.Aqua Guard Magna UV was got done from representative of OPs on 22.9.2016 in the premises of complainant. After installation of this water purifier, complainant and his family members felt no change in the water coming through water purifier vis-à-vis the earlier supplied by M.C.Ludhiana. Complainant then contacted Chander Parkesh, an official of OP3 for lodging complaint qua non-functioning of water purifier. Finally on repeated requests, official Narinder, Service Head of OP2 visited the premises of complainant for finding as if the TDS level was 360 PPM as emitted  through the                 installed water purifier. He found the level of TDS as 340 PPM as supplied by the M.C.Ludhiana. Inspection report was prepared by him and copy of same was supplied to the complainant with assurance that defective piece will be replaced within 10 days because fresh piece to be received from OP1 on sending of inspection report. Even despite contacting the referred official Gurdip Singh on 27.10.2016 through mobile phone, nothing has been done. Call to Chander parkesh, an official of OP3 even was made for lodging the complaint, but he refused to hear anything from the complainant, but disconnected the mobile call. Contact in Delhi office of OPs through mobile phone even was established, but Ops failed to provide the promised services and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to refund price of Rs.12,990/- with interest @12% per annum from 21.9.2016 till its refund. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- more claimed.

2.                 OPs are ex-parte in this case.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in ex-parte evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, his counsel closed the ex-parte evidence. 

4.                 Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for complainant and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

5.                 Purchase of Aqua Guard in question manufactured by Eureka Forbes by the complainant on 22.9.2016 is established by production of invoice bill Ex.C3. Warranty terms and conditions produced on record as Ex.C2 for establishing that warranty of the product was for one year. Payment of price of Rs.12,990/- established through receipt Ex.C1. So, this documentary evidence along with affidavit Ex.CA1 of complainant establishes that he purchased the Aqua Guard in question manufactured by Eureka Forbes on 22.9.2016 by paying the price of Rs.12,990/-.

6.                 Complainant and his family members did not find any difference of water emitted through installed water purifier vis-à-vis the water supplied by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and that is why, he contacted OP2 and OP3 and they deputed a technician, who submitted report Ex.C5 for disclosing as if level of TDS is 356 PPM, but in the second round, it was discovered as 326 PPM. Thereafter, complaint was lodged as revealed by email correspondence prints Ex.C4, Ex.C6 and Ex.C7.

7.                 The Internet study search  reveals that level of TDS Parts Per Million(PPM) should be between 50-150 for rendering the taste of purify water as excellent, but it will be good for athletes, if level of TDS is between 150-250. However, in case, level of TDS PPM ranges between 250-300, then it will be fair, but might be bad for kidney. After going of TDS level at 300-500 PPM,             taste of water will be poor and it might be very bad for kidneys. As through report Ex.C5 dated 10.4.2017, technician of OPs itself found TDS level as 356 PPM in the first round and at 326 PPM on second round and as such, certainly quality of supplied water through water purifier in question was of poor quality, which might be very bad for kidneys. However, as per internet search extracted from Google Search, it is made out that ideal drinking water taken from reverse osmosis should have 0-50 PPM of TDS. Unpleasant levels from Tap water, aquifers or mountain springs mentioned as 300-500 PPM of TDS in this study. So, certainly it is made out that level of PPM of TDS found in the water coming from the installed water purifier was found unpleasant and of poor range. As these defects not removed despite issue of reminders and as such, liability of manufacturer, service centre and seller for removal of defects certainly is there, particularly when there is no endorsement on invoice Ex.C3 that seller will not be responsible for providing warranty services. Therefore, Ops must repair the water purifier in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, so as to render it fit for supplying purified water in range of 50-150 PPM, TDS wise. As the complainant suffered mental pain, tension and agony and as such, certainly he is entitled for compensation and to amount of litigation expenses.

8.                 Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that R.O. in question be fully repaired by OPs so that TDS may be in the range of 50 to 150 PPM. That repair be carried within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In case this repair is not possible, then OPs must replace the R.O. in question with new one of same price within 30 days after finding the defective R.O. un-repairable. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs, whose liability held as joint and several. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                 File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                              (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                          (G.K.Dhir)

                        Member                                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:05.09.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.