BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NUH (MEWAT).
Consumer complaint No. 24/2016
Date of institution:- 04.11.2016
Date of decision:- 28.11.2017
Idrish son of Yakub resident of Punhana District Mewat, Haryana.
….Complainant
Versus
- Kent R.O. System Ltd. A-2, Sector-59, Noida, U.P.-201309 through its authorized signatory.
- Rambir R.O. Service Near Bus Stand, Pinangwan Mewat through its authorized signatory of Mr. Rambir.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
Smt. Urmil Beniwal, Member
Smt. Keeran Bala, Member
Present:- Sh. Kapil Nagpal, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. Ansul Jain, Authorized Representative for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No.2 already ex parte (vide order dated 25.8.2017.
ORDER:- Sh. R.S.DAHIYA (PRESIDENT)
The brief facts of the complaint are that in the month of February, 2016 complainant had purchased a Kent Gerand R.O. from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 15000/- vide cash memo No.14. Due to manufacturing defects, the aforesaid R.O. is not working properly and has been useless within six months of its purchase. The complainant again and again requested the opposite party to rectify the defects in the said R.O or to replace with new one, but no effective solution was provided by the opposite party. The complainant was suffering from serious illness, so the complainant purchased the R.O. for drinking purified water for good health as per doctor’s advice. A legal notice dated 1.10.2016 was issued to the opposite party but no reply has been given by the opposite party. Hence, it is prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 15000/- as claim amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of submission of claim form, compensation of Rs. 55,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and filed written reply. It has been contended that a false complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention for replacement of disputed purifier after using purifier upto 09 months and also to extract the money by claiming compensation on baseless grounds. The present complaint is frivolous as the complainant has failed to declare the manufacture defect in the purifier. It is stated that one year’s warranty of the above-mentioned product was given to the complainant by the opposite party. As per terms and conditions, routine services had been given to the complainant free of costs during the warranty period as and when calls were registered with customer care and no major problems ever found in the RO Machine. It has been vehemently stated that on 13.12.2016 the service technician visited the complainant’s premises to examine the disputed R.O. after receipt of notice of Hon’ble Forum, but the complainant refused for repair. Dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 25.8.2017.
4. In evidence, the complainant has produced the warranty card Ex. C1, copy of cash memo Ex. C2, copies of certificates Ex. C3 to Ex. C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Mr. Anshul Jain, Authorized Representative Ex. OP/1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material placed on file. The complainant produced some medical certificates which have no bearing in this case but only to show the advice of purified drinking water and that could be arranged by many alternatives, if the complainant was that much ill. However, we cannot overlook the fact that the equipment got problems and the same was not working properly. The technician of the opposite party visited the place of the complainant and serviced the equipment on 18.09.2016 to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, the equipment again stopped working and the complainant notified the opposite party of the same. Resultantly, the place of the complainant was visited by the technician of the opposite party on 21.09.2016 who found the wire of the PCB plate burnt but the same was not replaced by the technician of the opposite party and it appears to us that due to this reason, the complainant did not signed the job card of the even date. It is not in dispute that the equipment is defective as on 21.09.2016 which has neither been repaired nor replaced by the opposite party as such we find the opposite party is at fault.
In the light of the above discussions, we allow the complaint and directed the opposite party No.1 to replace the RO system with new one of the same model and with a guarantee/warranty as applicable on the new RO system. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, physical harassment as well as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order failing which the opposite party No.1 is liable to refund the cost of RO System which is Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e.04.11.2016 till its realization. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on 28.11.2017
President
Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum/Nuh (Mewat)
28.11.2017
Note:- This judgment consisting three pages, each page has been checked
carefully and signed by us.
President
Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum/Nuh (Mewat)
28.11.2017
