BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.25 of 2017
Date of Instt. 25.01.2017
Date of Decision: 11.07.2018
Surat Chander aged about 59 yrs son of Late Sh. Chuni Lal, resident of House No.144, Housing Board Colony, Urban Estate, Phase-1, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Kent R. O. Systems Limited A-2, Sector 59, Noida U.P. 201309.
2. Mukesh Kumar, Kent R. O. System Near Easy day Store Mithapur Road, Jalandhar through its Authorized Service Centre.
3. Ms. Hema Malini, in capacity as Brand Ambassador for Kent Water Purifiers, resident of Advitiya-17, Jaihind Socity, 12th Road, JVPD Scheme, Bombay-400049, Maharastra.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
None for OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant bought the Kent Water Purifier for his domestic use to be installed at his residence. The said Kent Water Purifier is manufactured by OP No.1 and OP No.2 is authorized service centre. The said Kent Water Purifier was installed at the residence of the complainant by authorized service centre. After the purchase and installation of Kent Water Purifier, the complainant contacted the OP No.1 to inquire about the life of the internal machinery parts as the product was creating trouble and not providing the quality water as was claimed by the OPs at the time of the sale of the product and various advertisement flashing on social media and the newspapers. The complainant has been constantly requesting OP No.1 and 2 to rectify the inherent defect and with the hope and trust that his grievance will be resolved, but all efforts made to convince and persuade these OPs feel on deaf ears. Resultantly, they have maintaining a deafening ears to woe difficulty and hardship of the complainant. Ultimately, the complaint was registered at No.160311-02067 with the OP through email. Besides, several calls were made to customer care centre, but all in vain. After continuous follow-up, ultimately, a representative of the OPs No.1 and 2, by the name of Mr. Mukesh visited the house of the complainant to check and report on the inherent manufacturing defect in the product and to find out the root cause of improper deficient working of the product and not giving clean purified water as promised by the mode of advertisement and at the time of sale of the product, as fully described. Thereafter, no response in respect to the inspection made by said Mukesh Kuamr nor the inherent manufacturing defect has been rectified till date. The OPs have failed to show friendly and service oriented behaviour and attitude, which tantamounts to unfair and deceptive trade practice besides giving misleading advertisement. The complainant has suffered great pain, stress, mental agony and humiliation amongst his family members, relations and friend circle and as such, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to reimburse the cost of Kent Water Purifier along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of its purchase upto actual payment and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed reply, whereas OP No.3 was not summoned by our Predecessor being not a necessary party in this complaint. The OP No.1 and 2 took a plea that the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation. The purifier is reportedly purchased on 06.04.2014 and the complaint has been filed on 25.01.2017. That now after the expiry of warranty period of one year on 06.04.2015 and more so after completion of 2 years and 9 months from the date of purchase. If the complaint is entertained, great miscarriage of justice will happen and further submitted that the complainant has used the purifier for close to 3 years. There is no defects whatsoever reported during that period and not even during the 1st year of the warranty period, as such, the manufacturer cannot be held responsible beyond warranty period if the complainant does not pay for the repair charges and further submitted that the complainant has made the vague allegations in his complaint and further submitted that complaint No.160311-02067 as stated in the complaint was registered on 11.03.2016 for routine services after 2 years from the date of installation and it had to be cancelled as the complainant refused to pay the services charges. The motive of the complainant is only to get refund and extort exorbitant compensation from the OPs, by entangling him in the litigation and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the allegation as made in the complaint, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and then closed the evidence.
4. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the written arguments already submitted on the file by the OPs.
6. In nutshell, the allegations of the complainant are that he purchased Kent Water Purifier for his domestic use and the same has been got installed in his house and as per warranty card Ex.C-4, the warranty of the product is one year, but after the purchase, an installation of the Kent Water Purifier, it was created problem and not providing the quality water as was claimed by the OP at the time of the sale of the product and various advertisements flashing in the social media and in the newspaper and accordingly, the complainant approached to the OP No.1 and 2 number of times and ultimately, a complaint was registered at No.160311-02067, but after continuous follow up, one Mr. Mukesh visited the house of the complainant, but who failed to rectify the inherent defect in the product and thereafter, a legal notice was also issued by the complainant to the OP, but no action was taken by the OP and as such, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OP be directed to refund the price of the Kent Water Purifier along with interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses.
7. On the other hand, the OP No.1 and 2 took a ground in the written argument that complaint of the complainant is time barred because the purifier was purchased on 06.04.2014 and after elapse of about three years, the instant complaint filed on 25.01.2017 and as such, the complaint is hopelessly time barred.
8. We have considered this aspect of the OP and find that the complaint of the complainant is not time barred because we are not taking into consideration the warranty period rather we have to reckon the period of limitation from the date when cause of action accrued to the complainant and cause of action accrued to the complainant time to time, whenever the said water purifier is not working properly and not providing purifier water to the complainant and as such, the plea taken by the OP in regard to complaint barred by limitation, is not established.
9. Further, we have considered the case of the complainant as well as reply of the OP and find that the complainant has not mentioned the date when any defect accrued to the water purify, it is necessary for the complainant to mention the date when firstly defect was occurred in the Kent Water Purifier, but for the best known reason, the complainant failed to disclose any date in the complaint and under this situation, it is very difficult to assign the date, where from we account the period of warranty of one year, because if the defect is occurred during period of one year, then we can say that the product is within a warranty, but as per version of the complainant as envisaged in para No.9 of the complaint that his complaint was registered being a number 160311-02067, but again no date is mentioned, but in reply to this, the OP alleged that the said complaint was registered on 11.03.2016. So, it means the complainant first time sent a complaint regarding any defect in the Kent Water Purifier on 11.03.2016 and product was purchased on 06.04.2014 as complainant himself alleged in Para No.7 of the complaint, so if we took a period from 06.04.2014 a one year, then it comes to on 06.04.2015, but the first complaint was made by the complainant in the month of March, 2016, means beyond the period of warranty, if so, then the complainant is only entitled to get repair the said Kent Water Purifier on payment basis.
10. Furthermore, the complainant has not proved and produced on the file any report of the mechanic, where from we can ascertain that there is any manufacturing defect in the Kent Water Purifier. No doubt, the complainant has placed on the file one Retail Invoice Ex.C-9 and Certificate Ex.C-10 of M.S. Consultants, but these documents are not even remotely having any concern with the Kent Water Purifier and further, the complainant has also brought on the file some emails Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-7, but these emails are also after the expiry of the warranty period. Further, we like to discuss the document of the OP i.e. reply of the legal notice Ex.OP/3, wherein the OP No.1 and 2 categorically gave a reply to the complainant as under:-
“One year warranty of the product has already been expired and the RO is now out of warranty. However, after receipt of the complaint number 160311-02067 for the first time on 11.03.2016, we have deputed our Service Officer to resolve the grievances, if any, since the purifier is out of warranty, we offered service on chargeable basis to which complainant declined”.
It means that the OP has provided a best service whatsoever available, but the complainant did not accept this service and even the complainant has not denied this factum in his affidavit and further the above facts is corroborated with an other document Ex.OP-5, wherein again reference is given customer not ready to pay charges. So, from all the angles, we are of the opinion that there is no negligence or deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 and 2 because the product got any defect, which is not established inherent manufacturing defect, after the expiry of warranty period and whenever service was demanded from the OP, OP deputed its service man, but the complainant himself declined to get the service on payment basis, so as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled for compensation as well as litigation expenses.
11. However, in view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 and 2 are directed to repair the Kent Water Purifier product of the complainant on payment basis, if complainant is ready and accordingly, this complaint is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
11.07.2018 Member President
