BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 21^thDAY OF NOVEMBER 2024

SMT. SUMA ANILKUMAR, MEMBER

1. Complaint filed under section 35 of consumer protection Act2019, complainant seeking direction towards OPs for the following reliefs.

1. Direct the Opposite parties to reimburse the cost in the purchase of two cisterns from them amounting to INR. Rs.37,745/- and cost of Rs.34,394/- incurred in replacement cisterns purchased from CERA and Rs.30,900/- towards purchase of ¾ pipes, replacing the plastic valve, installing water pressure pump, cost towards hiring plumber etc., in all Rs.1,03,039/- with 18% interest p.a.
2. Direct the OPs to pay the cost of a sum of INR. Rs.3,00,000/- involved for structuring the bathrooms as per the recommendations of the 3^rd OP;
3. Direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the amount for the alternate accommodation, disrupting family well-being, inducing mental agony, and causing deficiency of service by OPs in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Direct the OP to pay the costs of the above proceedings and advocates fee to the complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

the complainantsubmits that being impressed with the sales representation and quality assurance made by the OPs and having recourse totheir brand image, the Complainant expressed his intention to purchase the Hindware Sanitaryware’s CISTERNsfor private use in two washrooms at his residence in the address stated above consisting three BHK individual home, and upon visit to the 3^rd OP wherein the Sales representative stated that “Hindware was presenting for the first time inIndia,the Tankless Wall mounted EWC with an innovative technology which ensures 100% flushing without concealed cistern and it takes minimal space, allowing more intelligent utilization of bathroom without breaking the walls.”

3. Complainant is the representative of OP3 that he needed two cisterns for his bathrooms which were under renovation and further enquired if the new product would require any additional improvisation to function or if it would perform if any other “ cistern with external tank”. The complainant also informed the sales representative that he would make alterations to the ongoing renovation based on his recommendations and advise to fit the new cistern, but the OP3 representative informed the complainant that it needs no up-gradation to water lines nor requires other installations and further stated that the product was tank-less model and uses minimal space, would not require any alteration. Hence, the complainant could seal the wall and let the water inlet and flush out points be kept upon.Considering OP3 recommendation the complainant placed orders for 2 Italian cistern for an amount of Rs.37,745/- which was paid towards OP4. Meanwhile, the complainant continued with renovation of bathrooms, which involved changing of pipe lines for water supply, consequently with in-let change for cisterns, plastering of walls and laying new tiles etc, and were awaiting for delivery of new cisterns.

4. After placing the order of the said cisterns were belatedly delivered from Hyderabad, containing neither the user manual along with it. OPs also fail to send any executives, install the same.On several personal calls and visits by the complainant, the OP did not respond.With no choice,the complainant got the cisterns fixed by plumbers. While fixing, the said cisterns could not be connected to the water inlet as the cistern came with ¾ inches connecting pipe which was also too short in length, where it cannot be installed. The complainant made several calls with OPs customer service and on 19 October 2020 registered thecomplaint holding docket No. CJ025392 which was letter assigned to technician Suresh Sai. On the said complaint the technician visited complainant’s home. He suggested that the connecting pipe provided will not be sufficient, and longer connecting pipe is required, OP however got half inch pipe and connected it with the said ¾ inch pipe, yet the cisterns did not function as promised. On this, OP further advised to buy water pressure booster pump which shall facilitate the flush function. On the advised of the OP the complainant purchased water booster pump, which were amount of Rs.7,500/- on 23/10/2020.

5. Further on installation of pressure pump also the cisterns did not function, and sum of Rs.7,500/- invested for the purpose was waste. The OP further advised to change the entire said pipes and to have separate ¾ inch pipe of 1 meter length each and OPs demanded additional amount of Rs.1,000/- per pipe. Helplessly the complainant left with no options made payment of Rs.1,000/-for the same. The complainant was said that it would take 10 days for the pipes to arrive as it was to be dispatched from Delhi. The complainant states that “the said product was marketed in Bangalore without ensuring the availability of all products in Bangalore which amounts to deficiency in service.” On 30/10/2020 the complainant wrote the detailed Email to OPs requesting for immediate intervention to fix the problem. Further in November the OPs delivered the pipes but did not installed the same. Despite several requests, the complainant got pipes fixed from the local plumber, in spite of the pipes being fixed the cisterns did not work properly, it was detucted that the problem was “Low Pressure” and OPs did not support in fixing the low pressure issue. Hence, the complainant raised a ticket CK038421 with the OPs to fix the low pressure issue. The OPs instead of sending the technician to resolve the said issuesent an SMS to the complainant wherein it stated that “your Job No.CK038421 is completed by our technician; your happy code is 1152” on 28/11/2020 at 07:03pm, wherein no technician visited to complainant’s house to resolve the issue. The complainant received another SMS on 01/12/2020 that the OPs customer care was unable to reach him, service whereas there was no attempt made by OPs to contact the complainant. The complainant raised another ticket of 27/01/2021 to the OPs to fix the pressure issue in the cisterns.

6. The complainant raised tickets with OPs on 14/07/2021, which was open till 16/07/2021 but was closed on 17/07/2021 with SMS stating that “4465 was the job satisfaction code which was to be submitted by the technician only after service was provided. The complainant further raised new tickets holding service ticket No.s: DG026208, DG026220. On 22/07/2021 a service technician by name Shri Santosh arrived at complainants house with the meter that checks the water pressure in the pipelines, after checking the water pressure at the ground and first levels he called his senior to inform him that the gauge in water pressure was below 2, for which the senior technician informed that the fault was in the complainants water line as in every house hold water pressure is minimum 2 gauge. The OP senior technician suggested that the fault was in complainants water lines and asked them to rectify the same. The complainant cross checked with all the neighboring apartments and house with the pressure gauge as to what gauge level they are having.To their surprise,the complainant found that all the neighboring houses even at the 4^th floor, ground floor where having pressure gauge below 2.

7. The complainant also faced problem with pressure pump where they had to approach Vguard customer service, the technician from Vguard stated that constant “rip apart”of plastic valve was the reason of non-functioning of pressure pump and has to be replaced with brass valve, which was replaced with an additional amount of Rs.1,400/-by the complainant. Further, on the use of said cisterns, there was a constant ‘blue light’ on the cisterns for which the complainant again registered a complaint through Whatsapp holding No.EF011134-EF011135 on 07/06/2022. Blue light indicated battery change and whenever there was such problem, the complainant had to change batteries for both C1 and C2,which again raised problems periodically, for which the complainant had to replace the batteries again and again.On complaint with the same,the technician reported that there might be problem in sensor or solenoid valve might not be working or there might be fault in both for which they had to pay an additional cost again. The said ceramic of the cisterns had a warranty for period of 12 years but not on the electronic parts. The complainant faced several problems and even in electronic parts. The warranty period on electronic parts is for 1 year from the date of purchase.

8. For the said replacement, the complainant had to approximately spent Rs.8,600/- to Rs.8,800/- per unit. The Complainant they raised several complaints, whatsapp messages and emails to OPs and waited to receive help as they faced mental harassment and the family were tormented and distressed because of the OPs, who fail to respond and rectify the problem of the complainants. Left with no choice, the complainants replaced both the cisterns with new ones from another company that is CERA on their own cost, for their well-being and peace. Left with no choice the complainant issued a legal notice through their council on 17/03/2023 but there was no reply to the notice by the OPs. Hence, this complaint by the complainant.

9. On issue of notice to OPs, OP1 to 3 appears before this commission and file their version. OP4 fail to appear before this commission and hence placed ex-parte.

10. In the version of the OPs 1, 2 and 3,the OPs submit that it has to be noted that OP2 “HSIL limited was demerged and transferred to Brilloca limited, as a going concern basis wide order dated 26/06/2019 passed by honorable NCLT Kolkata bench. Accordingly entire business pertinent to build product division of HSIL limited and its all rights / liabilities / obligations etc, as per the law and order passed by honorable NCLT Kolkata bench and on 20/04/2020 and 13/04/2020 the name of the Brilloca limited was changed to Hindware limited by register of companies Kolkata, so the complainant has made misjoinder of the parties that is OP1 and OP2,but in actual “ Hindware Limited” (hereafter referred as answering OP) is the concerned and necessary party to complaint in place of OP1 and OP2. Hence it is requested to honorable commission to delete OP1 and 2 from the array of parties.

11. The present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed forth with no cost and again arrays against answering OP. The alleged complaint is about the product in question i.e, cistern which was purchased by the complainant for Rs.37,745/- from OP4. It is pertinent to mention here that OP1 to OP3 is responsible for declaration mentioned on the packaging and warranty as per the terms and conditions provided by OP1 to OP3 in its warranty card. Moreover the OPs responsible for assurance and promise given by OP4.

12. The present complaint is fabricated to harm the reputation of the company, moreover to extort unjust gain with deceitful means. It is of utmost importance that as and when the complaint got raised by the complainant,the technician of the company immediately visited the house of the complainant and thoroughly inspected the product in question and found that the water pressure at the house of the complainant is not adequate (below 2 bargauge) as per the requirement of the product in question. However, the complainant did not pay heed at the time of installation of the product by a skilled plumber where the unskilled plumberfitted the wrong size pipe with the product.Moreover, the product was not delivering the proper efficiency,due to the wrong size pipe. Indeed the product was in proper working condition but due to wrong size pipe was not able to deliver properly. The technician of the OP suggested the complainant to change the pipe size which was recommended in the manual of the product. However, the complainant later shifted the blame on the company and called it as deficiency of service. The complainant himself appointed as an unskilled plumber as stated in his notice in para “f”, who advise the complainant for installation of water pressure pump. Hence, complainant cannot shift the burden of wrong doing on OPs. The complainant also raised the complaint for the sensor of the product which were replaced on payment for the said parts.As the said electrical parts were out of warranty.

13. The OPs further submits that, it has been noted by the technician of the company that the product was used improperly over the period of more than a year, which resulted in damage in parts of the product.However, proper usage of the product was guided by the technician of theOPs and it was mutually agreed between the technician and the complainant that the part of the product needs to be replaced. In-spite of the mutual agreement the complainant later filed this complaint, before this honorable commissionto waste the precious time of the commission and get order in favour of complainant. OPs submit that the complainant deliberately files this false complaint against the OPs and tried every possible aspect to get product replaced with new product or get refund of the amount. Hence raised repetitive false complainants with motive of getting the product replaced or to get the refund. However, the complainant failed to get refund of replacement of the product unnecessarily got new product of another company and seeking compensation for the same before this commission with intention to dupe the OPs. The OPs mentions that deficiency of service on their part would be if they deny the sales after service or repair of the product was whereas OPs never denied the same and still offers the repair of the product by replacing the part of the customer satisfaction, this is reiterated that there is no material defect in the product. The OPs state that, as per the warranty terms, it is specificallymentioned that “the warranty shall not cover any consequential orresulting liability, damage or loss to property or life arising directly or indirectly out of any defect in the Hindware product. The company’s obligation under this warranty shall be limited to repair or providing replacement of defective parts only under the warranty period.” Therefore, accordingly to warranty terms, the damages cost for new cistern purchased by the complainant from another brand cannot be covered by the company. The allegations of the complainant are wasted only of averments made in the complaint without any corroborative evidence attached showing manufacturing defect in the product. The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious besides being divide of any merit and has been filed with a view to malign the credential and repetition of the OPs. Hence, deserves to be dismissed. The OP requested to refer to answering OP2 as Hindware Limited and not HSIL Limited as thebusiness of market, meriting distribution etc, of the clause of products similar to the product in question is carried out in the name of “Hindware Limited”.

14. The complainant file their affidavit evidence along with 36 documents marked as Document P1 – P36. The OPs 1 to 3 fail to file their evidence. OP4 fail to appear before this commission &hence placed exparte. Hence, taken as nil. OP 4 fail to appear before this commission & hence placed Ex-parte.The complainant file their written arguments. The OP1 to 3 file their written arguments. Heard complainant counsel.

15. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

16. Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

                        Point No.1:-Affirmative.

                        Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

                        Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

17. Point No.1 and 2: These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

18. On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant, Ex.P1 which is an invoice dated 30^th September 2020, it is true that the complainant has purchased 2 cisterns from OPs for an amount of Rs.37,745/-. On observing the other documents Ex.P2, Ex.P4 to Ex.P31 which are the Whatsapp, email conversations between the complainant and the OPs,we see that the complainant has many times raised complaint with the problems in the cisterns. By looking into the conversations between the complainant and OPs.We observe that, on the complaint by the complainant.The OP has responded to the problem and has come out with several new options but has failed to rectify the problem and solve the issues. It is also true that the complainant has initially taken advice from the OPs while installing the said cisterns. The OPs have failed to guide or provide proper information about the product to the complainants. The OP has tried different solutions and made the consumer / Complainant spend each time to rectify the problem, but with no result. OPs themselves had no proper knowledge on how to rectify the problem. Ex.P3 is the copy of invoice dated 23 October 2020,ofpurchase of V.guard pressure booster pump for an amount of Rs.7,500/-.The complainant has spent many times to rectify the problem on products such as pipes, fittings etc.Even after fixing of the requirements mentioned by the OPs and also on getting the pressure pump fixed as per the OP’s advise, the problem with the cisterns remain the same andthe complainant had to face issues in the usage of the cisterns.

19. The Ex.P39 are the copy of photos of the video showing the pressure levels of various other neighboring apartments and houses of the complainant. The OP mentions that the complainant is facing an issue with the product due to the problem in the piping system of the complainant, where the pressure of the water supply is not sufficient enough and it is less than 2 gauge, whereas the regular water pressure commonly used by the houses is above 2 gauge. The complainant to verify the said statement by the OPs, got checked the pressure levels of the neighbouring houses and apartments, where he found that the pressure level of the water in all the houses &apartments checked by the complainant was below 2 gauge. The complainant got the said testing done by the OPs representative. This shows that the pressure for water supply in commonly less that 2 gauge in all houses,even in apartments and houses in ground floor where the water pressure in naturally high & OPs re misleading the complainant.

20. Further the complainant also faced issue again with the cisterns as there was a blue light continuously showing in the cistern. The OPs again tried to solve their problem by changing batteries for an additional amount of Rs.1,400/- which was taken by the OPs from the complainant. The complainant was informed that there was 1 year warranty for the electronic part of the cistern and not 12 years,as mentioned by the OPs during the purchase of the cistern. Ex.P32 and Ex.P33 are the copies of invoice dated 29/10/2022 and 03/11/2022 wherein we observe that the complainant has purchased new set of cisterns along with the materials required for its fixation for an amount of Rs.17,197/- and Rs.14,971/- respectively.

21. The OPs in their version admit to the fact that the complainant has purchased the cisterns from their dealer OP4 for an amount of Rs.37,745/-. The OPs 1 to 3 fail to submit affidavit evidence in their contention.The OPs 1 to 3 also admit to the fact that the complaint was raised to them by the complainant and they have also provided service regularly on the raised tickets. The OPs 1 to3 also admit to the fact that they are the manufacturers and submit that there is no manufacturing defect in the product purchased by the complaint.

22. On observing the above documents we see that it is true that the complainant has purchased the said products from the OPs. It is also true that OP1 to 3 are the manufacturers and OP4 is the dealer of the said product. We also observe that the OPs 1 to 4 have failed to provide proper instructions to the complainant while the purchase of the product. The OPs themselves could not identify the right problem and rectify it, as they tried all different possible ways and methods to solve the issue by unnecessarily making the consumer / complainant spend again and again to rectify the issue of the product. As the consumer / complainant “the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity standard and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be , so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practice.”The OPs have completely failed in giving proper information about the product during the purchase of the said product. The OPs further being the manufacturers of the product, fail to provide proper solution to the issues faced by the complainant and the product purchased by the complainant was not working as per the offers promised by the manufacturer. The said product was defective from the date of purchase and hence there is manufacturing defect in the products purchased by the complainant.The complainant and his wife had to face mental,physical and monetary losses,as the complainant’s wife was pregnant and had to face problem, wherein she could not comfortably used the products during her pregnancy period. The OPs could not rectify the problems faced by the complainant and hence as shown deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice as they could not provide proper information and guidance and sold the product promising luxurious features in the product,  to the complainant while the purchase of the product by them.

23. Commonly the hardware and sanitary products sold in the market do not contain any booklet that provides information about the products to the consumers. This leads to problems for the consumers during the fittings of the products. It is the right of the consumers to be informed about the fittings technalities and guidanceand other information about the warranty and guarantee of the products. The OPs being a reputed manufacturers holding very highly reputed brand in the market, had to provide proper information and services to the consumers / complainant. The product in issue was a highly technical product which is tankless model having electronic mode of functioning, which is not as normal, commonly used products that are sold in the market. The OPs have offered the said product with extra luxurious features to which the complaint has opted to purchase the same.The complainant though enquired about the fittings of the said products could not get proper guidance as to the fitting of the product. Commonly as there are several products in the market which are fitted differently such as floor fitted cisterns, wall mounted etc, which come with variationsin their sizes and measurements,it is important and necessary that the consumer or complainant is provided with proper guidance of the product by the manufacturers.As the dealers may mislead the customers to sell the products. Hence OPs 1 to 3 who are the manufacturers of the said products are liable for the products manufactured by them as the product manufactured could not perform as per the promise and claims made by the manufacturer. This shows manufacturing defect in the product.The manufacturer while manufacturing the product has to not only take care of the functioning of the product but also make sure the connected issues are properly taken care, to use the said products. OP4 has failed to appear before their commission and has sold the said product to the complainant offering the luxurious features in the product and as a seller has failed to respond to the complaint of the complainant, this shows deficiency in service on the part of OP4 and non filing of version & evidence can be drawn as the OP4 has admitted to the claim made by the complainant as reported in 2018(1) CPR 3(4) (NC) in the case Singla builders & promoters V/s  Amar kumar Garg wherein it is held that “Non filing of written version to the complaint  before the forum amounts to admission of the allegation levelled against them in consumer complaints.” Hence the OPs 1 to 4 have shown deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore they are liable to repay the amount of Rs.37,745/- to the complainant along with the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges.

24. Point No.3: In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

:ORDER:

1. The complaint filed under section 35 of consumer protection act 2019, is allowed in part.
2. OPs are jointly and severally directed to repay the amount of Rs.37,745/- with an interest of 8% from the date of purchase i.e, 30 September 2020 till realization.
3. OPs are further directed to pay compensation ofRs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
4. OPs are directed to provide a booklet of information & guidelines along with products manufactured & sold by them for the convenience of the consumers.
5. OPs are directed to pay the entire award amount within 45 days from the date of order failing which amount so awarded shall carry an interest of 10% per annum from the date of such default till realization.
6. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties with no cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 21^THday of NOVEMBER2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows: