BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 30.04.2018

Date of order : 03.12.2020

PRESENT:

Shri.V.S.Manulal President-in-charge

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member.

CC.No.189/2018

Between

O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant stated that he had ordered one Aquaguard Genus + (RO+UV+UF) from the 1^st opposite party on 29.10.2016 and the 1^st opposite party had given the product through the 2^nd opposite party on 05.11.2016 on payment of Rs.22,490/-. Thereafter, the complainant noticed some scratches in the product and informed the sales man of the 1^st opposite party. The salesman verified the product and informed the complainant that the product was not a fresh one. Therefore, he had replaced the water purifier with a fresh piece on 08.11.2016 and took back the old one. The product was installed by the technicians of the 1^st opposite party. Unfortunately, the product showed some complaint of water leakage within 2 hours after the installation of the water purifier and the room filled with water due to the leakage of the product. The complainant informed and lodged a complaint to the opposite party and the service persons rectified the complaint by replacing few parts inside the product including the connector. But the defect remain persists. The complainant informed the opposite party by letter and over phone on different occasions, but the service person of the opposite party considered the complainant as ‘burden’ and the complainant requested to replace the defective water purifier and it was informed by the opposite party that the product once sold cannot be taken back or replaced vice versa. He is entitled only service support. The request of the complainant was rejected by the opposite party and they informed the complainant that if any part of the product was replaced, that would be done at free of cost and the replacement of the product is not possible. It is stated that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.22,490/- towards purchasing the water purifier and it became defective within a short period of time. The complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party on different occasions, but all these were in vein. Hence the complainant informed the opposite party that he is taking a legal action against the opposite party and the service person of the opposite party replied that they are not bothered about it, since they have a good legal team. Finally, the complainant sent a registered legal notice on 17.10.2017 to the opposite parties requesting them to pay back an amount of Rs.22,490/- and took back the faulty product within 15 days. The 1^st opposite party received the notice on 27.10.2017. The 2^nd opposite party was not received the notice and it is returned with an endorsement that the ‘addresee left’. In the above circumstances, the complainant approached before this Commission for the redressal of his grievances. The complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by the complainant being the cost of the water purifier along with other reliefs.

2) Notices were sent to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and the opposite parties appeared but they had not filed version or contested the case.

3) Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidences produced by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A5. No oral or documentary evidences produced by the opposite parties.

4) The main points has to be examined in this case is as follows:

(i) Whether the complainant had proved any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

(ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation or relief from the side of the opposite parties?

(iii) Costs of the proceedings?

5) (i) Point No. (i)

We have examined the matter in detail with regards to all the available documents and after making a thorough perusal on the exhibits produced by the complainant along with the proof affidavit. On verification of the above documents, we have come to the inferences that the complainant had purchased a water purifier from the opposite party who are the direct sales team and delivery plant of the manufacturer. The manufacturer had not been made a party in this case. Exbt. A1 Retail Invoice dated 05.11.2016 issued by the opposite party shows that the complainant had remitted Rs.22,490/- to the opposite party for purchasing the Aquaguard Geneus+(RO + UV+ UE). The said water purifier became defunct and it showed some defects like scratches, water leakage etc. As per the complaint filed by the complainant for which the complainant has not substantiated his averments with the support of any job card or Expert’s opinion. It can be seen that the complainant had sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 17.10.2017, which is evident from Exbt.A2. The said notice was acknowledged by the 1^st opposite party. The said acknowledgment of postal receipts issued by the postal authorities is produced by the complainant and marked as Exbt.A3. The original acknowledgment card signed by the 1^st opposite party is marked as Exbt.A4. The undelivered original lawyer notice and acknowledgment card of the 2^nd opposite party is marked as Exbt.A5. The opposite party was asked to present and file version by sending the notice from this Hon’ble Commission and the said notice had been acknowledged by the 1^st opposite party. Eventhough, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared before this Commission they have not filed version or contested the case. Non filing of the version and non contesting of the case before this Commission amounts to clear admission of the allegations and averments raised by the complainant and hence we are of the opinion that the materials submitted by the complainant in this complaint is genuine and hence the complainant has subjected to severe deficiency of service from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Hence point No. (i) is proved against the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.22,490/- from the opposite parties, since the opposite parties are the direct selling team and plant operators of the manufacturers in this case as is evident from Exbt.A1.

6) Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)

Point No. (ii) and (iii) are taken together for convenience. Evidently the complainant could not use the water purifier due to the service deficiency on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Naturally he had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships… etc. due to the negligent attitude from the side of both opposite parties. We are of the opinion that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to compensate for the deficient service on the part of the opposite parties. We award an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

In the result, we allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.22,490/- to the complainant which was received by the opposite parties as per the Exbt.A1 Retail Invoice. The 1^st opposite party shall took back the faulty Aqua-guard Genus + (RO+UV+UF) water purifier from the complainant’s house within 7 days.

2. The opposite parties 1^st and 2^nd shall pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3) The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 3^rd day of December 2020.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Sd/-

V.S.Manulal, (President-in-charge)

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits: Nil

Date of Despatch ::

By Hand :

By Post ::