Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/199/2021

Smt. Poonam Sekhri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Havells India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Sharma

14 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Smt. Poonam Sekhri aged about 50 years wife of Sh. Arun Sekhri, resident of House No.1702, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

• Havells India Limited having its registered office at 904, Ninth floor, Surya Kiran building Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught place, New Delhi, through its Chairman & Managing Director Email:

 .  … Opposite Party

Per surjeet kaur Presiding Member

• Briefly stated, the complainant purchased the Havells UTC-RO from Opposite Party No.3 Verma Store  for an amount of Rs.17500/- on 25.6.2019 vide invoice Annexure C-1. The subject product started malfunctioning shortly after its installation and as such the complainant lodged several complaints with the Havells Service Department as is apparent from Annexure C-2 to C-9. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties failed to resolve the problem in the subject product. It is stated that initially the water purifier was using up and emptying the entire water tank installed in the complainant’s residence, which has a capacity of 300 litres. The complainant filed a grievance with Havells Service Team and the same was repaired.  However subsequent to the repair work undertaken by the havells authorized representative the water purifier resulted in complete failure of function and stopped dispensing water but the OPs given the justification of malfunctioning of the product by contending that there is issue with the quality of water supply in Chandigarh though on checking the quality of water by the employee of MC the same was found OK. It is alleged that despite repeated requests and legal notice sent by the complainant to the Opposite Parties for replacement or refund of the amount nothing was done by the OPs. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
• The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply stated that the complainant has neither adduced any evidence or any expert opinion report to support the allegation of manufacturing defects in the water purifier. It is averred that to allege or prove any manufacturing defect expert opinion report is primary evidence. It is vehemently denied that within a short period of time the water purifier has malfunctioned. It is averred that the complainant has simply levelled allegations that the product has a manufacturing defect without giving any details as to which functional part is malfunctioning or without adducing any evidence in this regard. The complainant failed to prove that the product is not working as per its specifications. It is averred that the warranty is limited to the repair of the product or replacement of its parts only. Therefore, the question of complete replacement or refund does not arise at all. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
• OP No.3 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 28.06.2021 it was proceeded against exparte.
• Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
• Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
• We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
• The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that he was sold a substandard product by the OPs which could not work as assured by the OPs and stopped dispensing water. After checking the product, the OPs gave justification of malfunctioning of the product by contending that there is issue of quality of water supply in Chandigarh.  The complainant made several requests to the OPs for replacement or refund but to no result.
• The stand taken by the OPs No.1&2 is that   there is no expert report on record to support the allegation of the complainant qua manufacturing defects in the water purifier. It has been contended that warranty is limited to the repair or replacement of its parts only and so there is no question of replacement or refund.
• After careful perusal of the record it is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased the product in question after paying an amount of Rs.17500/- from his hard earned money. Annexure C-2 to C-9 are the various complaints filed by the complainant with the OPs in order to get the issue resolved in the product in question but the OPs could not get the same resolved and rather the water purifier stopped dispensing water. The OPs has taken the stand in their reply as well as reply to the legal notice that its authorized service representative had found the filters choked due to excess sediment in water and the same was even shown and explained to the complainant. Further sediment cartridge, carbon cartridge, RO Membrane and minerals cartridge were effectively changed and pre filter was also installed free of cost to improve the water quality and to resolve the issue being faced by the complainant despite the poor quality of water.
• In our opinion the definition of a water purifier is that it removes impurities by lowering contamination of water using a fine physical barrier, a chemical process, or biological process. Filters cleanse water to different extends for purposes such as providing agricultural irrigation, accessible drinking water, public and private aquariums and the safe use of ponds and swimming pools etc. Meaning thereby the product in question is meant to purify the water supplied in the area for the drinking purpose. There is nothing on record to show that the product in question is meant to purify a particular kind of water and not the one which is supplied in the area where complainant resides. Hence we are of the opinion that blaming the kind of water supply at the residence of the complainant is mere allegation.      
• From the record it is apparent that even after the OPs have done so many repairs and replacement the product in question did not work properly rather it stopped dispensing water meaning thereby the complainant was sold a sub-standard product which could not work even for a complete year i.e. upto its warranty period. So many repairs indicate that certainly there was inherent problem in the product in question which could not be rectified despite various replacement. Hence, it is proved on record that the OPs first sold a sub-standard product to the complainant thereafter they could not resolve the issue therein and denied replacement or refund thereof to the complainant, which forced the complainant to knock the door of this Commission, which amounts to deficiency on service on their part.      
• In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

to refund the invoice price of the product to the complainant to the tune of Rs.17,500/- with interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

After receipt of refund of the product as mentioned above the complainant shall returned back the product to the OPs.

• This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above 
•    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-