Date of filing: 23.06.2022

                                                           Date of Disposal: 24.01.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.130/2022

PRESENT:

SRI. RAJU K.S:MEMBER

                    SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Harish Narayana Naik,
Aged about 42 Years,

No.103, SR Residency,

Varanasi Main Road,

Jinkethimmanahalli,

KR Pura, Bengaluru-560036.          ……          COMPLAINANT

(Represented by Sri.Suresh Naik, Adv)

V/s

ION Exacense (Pvt) Limited,
No.34, 3rd Floor,10th B Main Road,

Opp. Cosmo Club, 3rd Block,

Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560011.

Rep by Authorised Signatory.               ……OPPOSITE PARTY

*****

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER

          The present complaint is filed U/sec. 35 of Consumer Protection Act-2019 with a prayer to direct the opposite party to refund the annual maintenance charge paid and the cost of the water purifier and to pay Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for health deterioration of the complainant by the opposite party. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under. The complainant is the party in person and he purchased aqua guard water purifier and signed annual maintenance contract with opposite party for a sum of Rs.8500/- on 31.10.2020 for a period of two years from 31.10.2020 to 31.10.2022. The opposite party claims to be an authorised service provider of aqua guard.

        3. This being the fact as per the contract, the opposite party is supposed to change one spray filter candle sediment filter free carbon free carbon post carbon micro filter membrane once in a year and also committed that free filter candle will be changed every six months i.e. 4 times in two years. Further after making the payment the opposite party not responded to the phone calls of the complainant and just kept on giving wrong commitments to change the first set of filters.

        4. Further the complainant made personal visit to the office of the opposite party, then only for one time one set of filters were changed on 20.11.2020.Further the complainant submits that he met one person called Mr. Vinodh Who assured that services will be taken care in time and it will be his responsibility to take care of that post that there is no service and preventive maintenance or filter change done till date. The complainant submits that Mr Vinod neither receiving the calls of the complainant nor replying to his WhatsApp messages.

        5. Further the complainant submits that he has registered online complaint to Ministry of consumer affairs Food and Public distribution Portal "Where the service provider has responded on 13.06.2022 said  that “provided service and filter replacement as per annual maintenance contract’’ Based  on this the department said the grievance was taken up with the company by NCH and the company has replied under the company response, in case still the complainant need to pursue  may approach appropriate authority. Therefore, the complainant prepared this complaint for the redressal of his grievances under the Consumer Protection Act-2019 against opposite party for the deficiency of their services and unfair trade practices. Hence, this complaint.

        6. The notice of this complaint was issued to opposite party. The RPAD is returned with an endorsement “addressee left without instructions”. The commission held that the service was sufficient and placed exparte.

        7. The complainant files affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief as PW-1 with documents and the same are marked as EX.P1 to EX.P5.

8. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the opposite party had practiced the UnfairTrade Practice ?

ii) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

iii) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled for ?

iv) What order ?

      9.  Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 & 2:  In affirmative

Point No.3 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.4 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

10. POINT NO.1 & 2:-

To avoid the repetition of facts we have discussed point number one and two together. PW1 had reiterated the facts of the complaint in his affidavit evidence in chief. It is evident from Ex.P1 i.e. the contract with the opposite party, which is also the receipt of payment of Rs.8500/- having been received by the opposite party. It is mentioned in it that service contract for the period of two years from 31.10.2020 TO 3110 2022 signed by the complainant. Which contains the terms and conditions of the service and the offers as follows:-

“Under this contract ION Exacense (Pvt) Ltd. (“IEPL” or “Company”) undertakes to maintain your water purifier/Attachment Installed at the address registered with us

This contract provides for free replacement of consumable and periodical service to the product as below:

15. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased aqua guard water purifier for which an annual maintenance contract for service of the same was entered into with the opposite party by paying 8500 for the purpose of servicing the same product for two years with effect from 31.10.2020 to 31.10.2022. On perusal of the pleadings and records of the complaint, the opposite party failed to provide the service as claimed under the annual Maintenance contract. Hence, the complainant has established deficiency of service and unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party. Therefore we answer Point No.1 and 2 in affirmative.

16. POINT NO.3 : The complainant made a prayer in this present complaint for the direction to opposite party to refund the amount paid Rs.8,500/-towards the service of the aqua guard purifier and the amount paid for the aqua guard purifier machine and compensation for mental agony. We feel the complainant is entitled for the refund of annual maintenance contract charge s paid by the complainant to the opposite party of Rs.8,500/- with interest of 9% from the date of Annual Maintenance Contract dated 31.10.2020 as  the opposite party failed to provide the services as promised under the annual maintenance contract i.e. Ex.P1. In  addition the complainant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship  for  the health deterioration of the complainant due to the consumption of  contaminated and unsafe water of the said aqua guard water purifier and also entitled for the legal expenses Rs.5,000/-. Hence, we answer Point No.3 Partly in affirmative.

17. POINT NO.4:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of annual maintenance contract dated 31.10.2020 to the complainant.

Further the opposite party is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and  financial hardship and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses.                                                                                              

 If the Opposite party fails to comply the order within 30 days, the above said amount of Rs.10,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

  Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. 

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 24th day of JANUARY, 2023)                                            

(REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S)     (SHIVARAMA, K)    

 MEMBER             MEMBER        PRESIDENT

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

          Sri. Harish Narayan Naik, who being the

               complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

  1) Copy of the AMC agreement dt31.10.2020.

  2) Computer generated WhatsApp conversation. 

  3) Computer downloaded copy of the grievance   dt.23.05.2022.

  4) Computer downloaded copies of the complaint raised     against opposite party.

  5) Computer downloaded copies of judgment in CC.2009/2019 on the file of 4^th Addl. DCDRC,         Bangalore and CC.4/2022 on the file of 2^nd Addl.      DCDRC, Bangalore. 

 Witness examined for the opposite party side:         

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  
•