CC No.581.2016

Filed on 11.04.2016

Disposed on 16.02.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.581/2016                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

PRESENT:

     Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

              PRESIDENT

                     Smt. L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                                 MEMBER

                                          V/S

ORDER

BY SMT. L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the cost of the Acquaguard filter of Rs.17,490/- with 12% interest till the date of payment is made and one month interest that was paid by the Complainant about Rs.500/- with 12%interest till the date of payment and cost of legal notice charge of Rs.1,000/- cost of filing this complaint is Rs.2,000/- to award compensation for unfair trade practice, deficient of service punitive damages specially pleaded in the complaint as Rs.1,000/- and grant such other reliefs to the Complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant states that he called on the 2^nd Opposite Party and wanted to purchase a water filter namely: Dr.Aquaguard Magna HD RO+UV Water Filter for domestic purpose.  Before purchasing the same Complainant instructed the 2^nd Opposite Party to demonstrate the product about the usage, its total cost, maintenance, mode of payment, delivery, service conditions if any, etc.   Whereby the 2^nd Opposite Party assured whole heartedly that there will be a demonstration at Complainant’s residence of the said water filter, its usage and clarify all the Complainant’s doubts.  As per the assurance of the 2^nd Opposite Party, he sends a sales representative by name Mr.M.Uday Kumar.  Accordingly, on 09.06.2015 he came to Complainant residence with a sample piece for the purpose of demonstration and explained ostensibly blowing his own trumpet to Complainant and his spouse with respect to the function of the water filter etc., it may be noted that the salesman brought a dummy piece with an outward cover and explained to them.  What all he assured to the Complainant, may not reasonably and plausibly true and correct and try to exaggerate things as a salesman to sell the water filter to eke out his lively hood.  To which he gave him full assurance etc.  The Complainant asked as for as the cost of maintenance of the filter to which he brushed aside and it is very nominal and the company will take care of it the total maintenance at a nominal cost as per the Company’s rules and regulations. Service will be rendered at door steps etc.  The Complainant was under the impression that it may be of two candles only, as the Complainant had Opposite Party’s old filter with two candles.   Mr.Uday never uttered a word that this filter has five filters and it has to be changed periodically every year and it costs Rs.4,830/- includes the service charges.  It may be noted that the literature that was provided by Mr.Uday also did not disclose the number of filters and its costs.   It is neither stated in detail in the literature nor explained to the Complainant.  It is purely and Unfair Trade Practice, when the Complainant/customer specifically sought for clarification and it is paramount duty of the Opposite Party to disclose the same.   The rules of Fair Practice Code were not followed by Opposite Party.  It is pertinent to note that the demonstration piece neither had the candles inside the filter nor carried separately to explain in detail to the Complainant who has specifically instructed to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Opposite Party want only suppressed it with a mala-fide intention. When the customer demands specifically, it is the paramount duty of the sales representative to explain fully well and provide the literature with cost of each candle its types, necessity, functionary details and the service charges, technical knowhow etc.  It is the cardinal principle and mandatory to provide the basic and necessary things of the filter in the literature that was supplied to the Complainant.     Let Opposite Party can charge reasonably for the literature so provided for which Complainant, welcomes with open arms.   Such practice is just reasonable and fair play.  The Opposite Party cannot take its customer for a ride.  The literature hat was provided is to avoid ambiguity and assures the customers at large in detail.  Had the Complainant known the cost of annual maintenance, he would not have gone for the filter that is in question.  The Complainant was not aware of the true fact that there are five candles to be replaced every year and totally it costs Rs.4,830/- every year plus sundry expenses.  This fact was realized only when the service personnel came for free service and not otherwise.  Complainant was flabbergasted to know that the total cost of annual maintenance is more than one fourth of the cost the brand new filter itself.  It is penny wise and pound foolish.  It is nothing but suppression of the true and correct facts with a mala-fide intention of the Opposite Party.  It is nothing but cheating.  Opposite Party made a wrongful gain for p and wrongful loss to the Complainant with a dishonest intention.  It is very unethical, unlawful, illegal and opposed to Public Policy and such practice should be deprecated.  It is squarely and neatly falls within the ambit of Unfair Trade Practice.  The Complainant has taken reasonable care and caution as any other ordinary prudent person should have taken it, before purchasing the same and caveat emptor rule will not apply and the water filter is for personal use. When the Complainant sought specific and exact information, the concern person to come and explaint and/or specific literature to be provided.  Water is the primary source of infection and Opposite Party ostensibly says “Dr.Aqua Guard”.  How did they ratify it?.  It is also interesting to know that the service charge per visit is Rs.300/- by the company if it is within the Bangalore City limits.  Opposite Party will not have service centers at various places in Bangalore as Opposite Party’s predecessor had, i.e., TATA Company, who was not charging service charges.  One of the staffer only told the Complainant that Opposite Party earns more than five crore as annual turnover through service charges alone and without having servicing centers.  Opposite Party has not allowed its product to sell by any one and even the spare parts or accessories as the case may be.  Charging for its spare parts like candles or any other part is quite exorbitant and unthinkable.  Servicing hardly takes 15 to 20 minutes and change of entire unit spare part alone.  Question of repairing does nto exist and parts replacements only.  Even the service charges are to exorbitant and customer once purchased the product from Opposite Party cannot go elsewhere and bound to service with Opposite Party alone.  Under the peculiar facts and circumstances that the Complainant is not happy with the Opposite Party’s business operational style and it is unethical practice and monopolizing and usurping the customers and surreptiously booked the filter without disclosing he true and correct facts, as stated supra.

3.  The Complainant had booked the Aqua Guard water filter through the Opposite Party’s sales representative Mr.Uday for Dr.Aquaguard Magna HD RO+UV Water Filter online on 9^th Jun 2015 around noon in the Comp’s office chamber only.  Uday alone operated the Computer with his employment code etc. It was booked and payment of Rs.17,490/- was made through comp.  SBI Credit Card and immediately the transaction was reflected on to the comp.  When the online booking was made and despite payment was reflected onto the mobile further with, Uday was not satisfied of the payment made.  He insisted the Complainant to pay it online once again for the second time within few minutes, on the very day ie.,09.06.2015.  At his behest again for the second time booked it and again it was reflected on to Comp’s mobile at 12.36:12 pm. 09.06.2015, for the second time too and totally two debits were made in the comp.  SBI Credit Card on 09.06.2015 and at successive intervals as stated supra in italics with underlines.  However two times of Rs.17,490/- each, was debited successfully from the comp.  credit card account.  Immediately Complainant called on the II Opposite Party who had taken the responsibility of the job and assigned the job to Mr.Uday as the Sales Representative to demonstrate and booked the Water filter.  However the II Opposite Party has not taken the responsibility in solving the problem initially and Complainant sought for the 1^st Opposite Party’s address and not furnished the same too.  However it was reimbursed the said amount by the Opposite Party, for which the Complainant has to undergo misery, neurogenic shock made umpteen calls to Opposite Party and not responded to the calls and caused a legal notice inevitably.  The Complainant has to suffer for no fault of his and ought to pay 3.36% interest to the SBI Credit Card.  This could have done it within 24 hours by reversing the second payment made but refrain to do so in time.  It was the gross negligence of II Opposite Party Complainant has to suffer as narrated in detail in the legal notice.  Causing a legal notice was an additional expenditure for the Complainant apart from paying 3.36% interest.  Both the 1 & 2 Opposite Party were obdurate, callous in their attitude.  The Opposite Party promised free service after the sale within three months never done, but Complainant has to call them for the free service.  There was deficiency in service and callous in their attitude, although it was their gross negligence for which the Complainant bemoans.  It may be noted that after the sales Opposite Party knows only to which the Complainant for Deepavali, through e-mail, but failed to do the free service of their equipment.  On verification the Complainant came to know that Opposite Party’s water filter is the costliest in the market and so also their spare parts and the service charges too.  Everything is costlier, when compare to others in the trade.  Hence, this complaint.

4.   Even though notice was served on the Opposite Party, the Opposite Parties fails to put their appearance, hence placed ex-parte. 

5.     In support of the complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence. The Complainant had filed written arguments.

 6.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

7.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

8.     POINT NO.1: On perusing the pleadings along with documents produced by the Complainant, it reveals that on 09.06.2015 the Complainant had booked Aquaguard through online transaction.  The Sales Representative of the Opposite Party operated the computer with this employment code and booked Dr.Aquaguard Magma HD RO+UV water filter.  Online payment of Rs.17,490/- was made through Complainant’s SBI credit card.  Immediately transaction was reflected to the Complainant’s mobile number.  But Opposite Part’s representative was not satisfied the amount transaction and he requested the Complainant to pay second time.   At his request for the second time booked it and again it was reflected on to Complainant’s mobile number.  Totally two debits were made in the Complainant’s SBI credit Card on 09.06.2015.  Immediately the Complainant called Opposite Party, but initially the Opposite Party not taken the responsibility in solving the problem.  Later on 2^nd time payment was reimbursed by the Opposite Party.  But due to negligence of Opposite Party, the Complainant has to suffer no fault of his and ought to pay 3.36% interest to the SBI Credit Card.   To substantiate this fact, the Complainant filed his affidavit.  In his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and also in support of his sworn testimony, he produced Invoice dt.10.06.2015.  By looking into this document, it clearly shows that on 09.06.2015 the Complainant had booked Aquaguard water filter through the Opposite Party’s Sales Representative online.  The Opposite Party promised free service after the purchase of Aquaguard within three months.  The Complainant called them for the free service.  But they never bothered.  The Opposite Party failed to do free service as promised.  This evidence also remains unchallenged.  On 23.06.2015 Complainant issued legal notice.  But the Opposite Party neither replied nor fulfill the demand of the Complainant.  To disbelieve the version of the Complainant, nothing was on record.  In spite of repeated requests, the Opposite Party never bothered to fulfill the demand of the Complainant.  Thereby, this clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Hence, this point is held in affirmative.

9. POINT No.2:- In view of the finding on point No.1, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service by the Opposite Party. 

The Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.17,490/- with 10% interest till the date of payment is made. 

The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party is granted 30 days’ time from this date to comply this order.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 16^th day of February 2017)

        MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. M.K.Bopaiah, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Advocate for Complainant:

1. Copy of the Invoice

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

                                    -NIL-

  List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                          -NIL-

 MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT