This case is coming for final hearing on 05.01.2015 in the presence of Sri J.V.Ravindar Advocate for the Complainant and Opposite Parties called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on

behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party is a manufacturing company of water purifier and the 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 31.01.2012 to purchase a water purifier and the 2^nd opposite party shown and represented that the Zero B Prestine 5 Lts Model Water Purifier for Rs.9,950/- and the 2^nd opposite party also stated that the said water purifier covers warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of manufacture  for any manufacturing defects, to that effect, he also issued an Invoice/Road Challan No.712 after payment made by complainant.  The water purifier was fixed on 08.04.2012 and the complainant was unhappy from very beginning of using the said water purifier and immediately after 2 days of fixing the said water purifier, he identified that it was not working properly and there is a technical problem.  The water in that purifier is not coming out and the same problem was intimated to the 2^nd opposite party and after repeated requests made by the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party not send any service person to rectify the problem.  Then, on 09.05.2012 the complainant made a complaint to service centre i.e., customer care of the opposite parties with a complaint No.412146 and on his complaint one Mr.Jameen (service person) came in the month of June, 2012 and verified the water purifier and informed that the motor in the water purifier is not working and he left without rectifying the problem by saying he will come later.  On the day from till today there is no response from the opposite parties 1 & 2 and they kept silent.  After that the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party orally and by telephone calls requesting both the opposite parties to repair or change the water purifier.  Then, on 21.08.2012, the complainant issued a registered lawyer’s notice to 2^nd opposite party and the same was received by it, but there was no response.  Again the complainant send a registered lawyer’s notice to both the opposite parties on 17.01.2013 and the same was received by them, but there was no response, thus the opposite parties caused mental stress and strain to the complainant, even though warranty is in existence.  These acts of the opposite parties clearly shows deficiency of service on their part, as they intentionally failed to replace or repair the water purifier.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite parties;

a)      to pay an amount of Rs.9950/- with 24% p.a. interest from the date of purchase till the date of realization. 

b)      to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- besides costs.

2.       On the other hand, the 2^nd opposite party called absent and set exparte on 06.05.2013 and the 1^st opposite party also called absent and set exparte as memo filed by the complainant to show that the issuance of fresh notice to 1^st opposite party along with postal track report which confirms the notice was sent to 1^st opposite party on 26.08.2014.  Hence, as there is no representation by 1^st opposite party, it called absent and set exparte.

3.       At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A6. 

4.       In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

5.       As per Ex.A1 dated 31.01.2012 i.e., invoice/road challan No.712 clearly shows that the complainant purchased a Zero B Prestine 5 Lts Model Water Purifier for an amount of Rs.9,950/-. Ex.A2 is the manual book of the water purifier along with warranty card which was enclosed with manual book, wherein the date of expiry of warranty is shown as 08.04.2013.

6.       The version of the complainant is that the water purify which was purchased by him on 31.01.2012 and it was fixed on 08.04.2012 and from the date of fixation it was not working properly and the same was intimated to the 2^nd opposite party and also registered the complaint in service centre on 09.05.2012 bearing complaint No.412146 but there was no response.  Even after issuance of two lawyer’s notices also the opposite parties are kept silent and Ex.A3 dated 21.08.2012 is the registered lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party and Ex.A4 is the registered lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to both the opposite parties on 17.01.2013.  Ex.A5 & A6 are the postal acknowledgments of the opposite parties.

7.       After careful perusal of the complaint with related documents, the Forum is of the view that, immediately after one month of the fixation of the water purifier the complainant intimated about the defect in the water purifier to the opposite parties by registering the complaint in customer care centre, but the opposite parties failed to rectify the problem and more over, there is no response for the notices issued by the complainant, which clearly shows their deficiency in service and negligent attitude.  Being a trader/business person, the opposite parties have to attend the complaints made by the purchaser and try to rectify the problems.  Here in this case, even though there is warranty period and the water purifier is not working within warranty period, but there was no positive response from the opposite parties.  More over, even after receipt of notices issued by the Forum they failed to choose to contest the matter which clearly shows their negligent attitude and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.9,950/- with 9% interest from the date of fixation i.e., 08.04.2012 on receipt of water purifier from the complainant within one month.

8.       Because of acts of the opposite parties for non reacting to settle the matter and caused mental and financial hardship to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant can entitle for compensation of Rs.1,000/-, besides costs.

9.       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing both the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,950/- with 9% interest from 08.04.2012 within one month on receipt of water purifier from the complainant.  The Complainant is also directed to handover the defective in water purifier to the 2^nd opposite party within one month on receipt of this order and get the acknowledgment from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of January, 2015.

    Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-

Member                                                                 President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I 

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

                   NIL

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                                  President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//