Complainant Ramesh Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to replace the R.O. system or to return the full amount i.e. Rs.15,000/- alongwith Rs.30,000/- as suffering mental agony for taking unpurified water and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation , in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Kent Mineral R.O. purifiers from opposite party no.1 on 12.8.2015 for Rs.15,000/-. After four months the R.O. stopped to purify the water and he and his family was forced to take unpurified water. When he reported to dealer Gill Electricals Kalyanpur he advised him to contact on mobile and lodge complaint with complaint no.9278912345 but every time the reply received that they were not in contract with company for service. Once a mechanic from Gurdaspur came and checked the R.O. and told that they have sent request to company for sending the parts which are not functioning but till date no part has come and R.O. system is not functioning. He is still not getting service of faulty R.O. system and is mentally harassed for getting unpurified water for his family after spending a huge amount of Rs.15,000/-. The dealer has lastly refused to replace the R.O. or to get it repaired. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; this Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer Protection Act; no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite party; the complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant has filed the present false complaint by concocting a false story and dragged the opposite party in false litigation and as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has purchased the R.O. in question directly from the opposite party no.2. However, since the complainant has placed online order for supply of the R.O. to the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 delivered that R.O. to the complainant through the opposite party and opposite party handed over the same to the complainant. The complainant has not made any order for supply of R.O. in question to the opposite party, as such the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. However, it was admitted that the complainant approached the opposite party and obtained telephone number of the opposite party no.2. The opposite party has no knowledge regarding checking of the RO by the mechanic because the opposite party has nothing to do with the same. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply submitting therein that the disputed water purifier was purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1 on 12.8.2015 and the manufacturer/opposite party no.2 is providing only year’s warranty for the product and the manufacturer has obligation to rectify the defects of the purifier as per items of warranty conditions. It was further submitted that as per our service records, the complainant had lodged 4 complaints for Routine Services on 21.3.2016, 23.3.2016, 11.5.2016 and 22.5.2016 which were duly attended by erstwhile Service Franchisee M/s.Gill Electrical and no parts were required for replacement. From June 2016 onwards, a new Service Franchisee, M/s.Ghai Communication has replaced M/s.Gill Electricals. The complainant lodged 2 more complaints on June 6, 2016 and July 17,2016 for No Power in Machine and both the complaints were also duly attended by our new service franchisee M/s.Ghai Communication, Gurdaspur. The service technician found internal wiring of the machine loose at both the occasions which were made OK and the machine started working smoothly but the complainant refused to sign on the job sheet on both occasions. It was also submitted that the complainant has falsely stated that his water purifier is not functioning for want of some spare parts at the service center as he has failed to mention the date of complaint and also name of the service franchisee who had reportedly sent the machine at his residence. Further more, the complainant has filed the complaint in the District Consumer Forum on 1.8.2016 just 11 days prior to the expiry of warranty, this indicates that he had pre-planned to make a case for replacement of RO machine without having any genuine issues with regard to the functioning of machine. The performance of the machine can be rated as outstanding as it continued to work throughout the warranty period of one year without requiring any replacement of parts and the real aim of the complainant is to get a new replacement so that he could enjoy RO water of the new machine for another year without spending a single penny on replacement of filters etc. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. They lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
6. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaikab Masih Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence.
7. Sh.Vineet, working as Service Officer of opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-2/1, and closed the evidence.
8. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the attending litigants) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of non-production of some vital documents; of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present opposing/litigating sides.
9. We find that the complainant had purchased Kent Water R O Purifier Unit # KR 1506006765 on 12.08.2015 for Rs.15,000/- (from the opposite party no. 1) that however stopped functioning after ‘4’ months and the attending mechanic advised that the mal-functioning parts shall be replaced upon receipt from the company. Somehow, the unit was not be repaired by the titled opposite parties and the complainant had to file the present complaint seeking refund along with a suitable cost and compensation. The complainant has produced on records his affidavit Ex.CW1A, Invoice Ex.C1, booklet Ex.C2 and others to prove his allegations.
10. The opposite party 1 vendor has straightaway attempted to set-aside his post sales responsibility upon the opposite party 2 manufacturers vide his lone affidavit Ex.OP1/1 that shall not be acceptable as per the applicable consumer laws. The OP2 manufactures have expressed their inability to replace the RO Purifier in the absence of expert’s opinion confirming presence of some manufacturing defect. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for opposite party 2 manufacturer did offer to replace the full ‘inner-operations’ equipment of the RO Purifier in question and its service-officer even gave an undertaking in writing to this effect on 17.11.2016. Somehow, the learned counsel for the complainant reminded of his sufferings by way of torture, loss and harassment received and insisted upon award of cost and compensation.
11. We find that the complainant has neither produced any record of the OP’s Mechanic alleged visit/detection of ‘manufacturing defect’ in the RO in question nor he has produced any ‘expert opinion’ to support and prove his allegation of the non-functioning of the RO Purifier entitling him to replacement etc.
12. In the light of the all above, we proceed ahead with the present adjudicatory by partly allowing the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party 2 to remove the RO Purifier in question from the complainant’s residence to the OP2 Manufacturer’s Local Service Centre (as per its local arrangement) who shall replace its inner functioning equipment in totality (as stated before the forum on 17.11.2016) and keep it under observation for one day to remove the ‘defect’ if any (if be traced) and re-install the same in perfect working order at the complainant’s residence besides to issue him an Okay-Certificate with an extended warranty of ‘One Year’. The OP1 Vendor is however ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as cost and compensation for the harassment suffered by him. The entire exercise shall be completed within the prescribed period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders by the opposite party(s) otherwise the titled opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to replace the installed RO (at the complainant’s place of residence) with a new/fresh RO Purifier of same model and specifications etc.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
November 28, 2016 Member.
*MK*
