15/02/2021
O R D E R
By Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair, Member :
Facts :
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased an Aqua Guard water purifier on 13/06/2012. It was assured that the product is of top quality. The invoice value is of Rs.11,490/- Invoice NO. is 1602100873. On its use it has been realized that the proper purification process is not taking place and the equipment is not functioning properly. Then a complaint was lodged with the opposite party. Immediately a new model was given after taking Rs.2,500/- more. Unfortunately, the newly given Model was also not functioning properly. Even after doing a number of services the condition of the equipment was same. The acts of the opposite party by selling substandard products and also not providing required after sales service amount to deficiency in service. Therefore complaint may be allowed granting Rs.13,996/- with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs.
2) The case was admitted. Notice was ordered to opposite party. Opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version through advocate. Apart from categorical denial of all allegations levelled against this opposite party a specific contention by the opposite party is that the complainant was intentionally evading periodical services to the Machine. Even though there was no deficiency in service or defect in the machine in order to keep the goodwill of the company this opposite party has showed their willingness to replace the product or servicing the machine free of cost. But it is injust to ask for replacement always, instead, necessary periodical services must be done to ensure that the machine is working properly where some parts like consumables need to be changes. The complaint is without any merits. Allegations are baseless. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite party.
3. Case then posted for evidence ? The points for consideration are the
following
- Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from
the side of opposite party ?
b) Is yes, costs and reliefs ?
4) Both parties filed proof affidavits. Complainant filed 3 documents. Marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Opposite party produced seven documents. Marked as Exts. R1 to R7. Expert Commission Report is marked as C1. He was cross examined. His deposition is marked as CW1. Also produced argument notes by both and the matter was heard in detail. Ext. P1 is the Invoice dtd. 13/16/2012; Ext. P2 is the copy of Lawyer Notice dtd. 22/11/2013; Ext. P3 is the Postal A/D; Ext. R1 is the Letter of Authorisation dtd. 21/02/14; Ext. R2 is the Water quality Report by Eureka Forbes dtd.23/12/13; Ext. R3 is the Brochure Model of warranty card; Ext. R4 (SP) is the Customer Feedback report; Ext. R5 is the Service Card; Ext. R6 is the Service Card; Ext. R7 is the Customer feedback report.
5) Appreciation of Evidence :
We have examined the proof affidavits, documents, argument notes and also Expert Commissioner Report and the objection to the report as well. We are convinced that there are defects as found out by the Expert Commissioner. It is concluded by the expert that the water purifier is not making any significant change in the quality of water while undergoing the so called filtering Reverse Osmosis (RO) purification and taste enhancement process in the water purifier. Expert Commissioner confirms that purity testing was also done at the Testing Laboratory, Quality Control Sub Division, K.W.A., Thrissur – 680 005. The test results show the presence of coli-foam Bacteria at an alarming level both in the water as well as in the water outlet from the purifier. Water purifier is thus not safety, healthy and not capable to purify raw water. There is no contradiction in his deposition CW1 also. This Commission is not ruling out the importance of periodical service and change of consumables. In the instant case the Machinery seems to be defective as correctly found out by the Expert Commissioner. Therefore we find deficiency in service and defect in the goods supplied.
Relief and cost :
We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.13,990/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand nine hundred and ninety only) being the cost of water purifier taking back the old one and cost Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 15th day of February 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair C.T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. P1 Invoice dtd. 13/16/2012
Ext. P2 copy of Lawyer Notice dtd. 22/11/2013
Ext. P3 Postal A/D
Ext. C1 Expert Commissioner Report
Complainant’s Witness :
CW 1K. K. Ramachandran
Opposite Party’s Exhibits :
Ext. R1 Letter of Authorisation dtd. 21/02/14
Ext. R2 Water quality Report by Eureka Forbes dtd.23/12/13
Ext. R3 Brouchure Model of warranty card
Ext. R4 (SP) Customer Feedback report
Ext. R5 Service Card
Ext. R6 Service Card
Ext. R7 Customer feedback report.
Id/-
Member
