Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/221/2022

Sanwarmal Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kent R.O - Opp.Party(s)

in person

19 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 221 of 2022

                  Date of Institution             : 21.10.2022

                                                           Date of Decision               : 19.03.2024

 

Sanwarmal Goyal son of Sh. Deena Nath R/o 366, Vikas Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

Market Manager, Kent RO System Ltd., E-6, 7 & 8, Sector-59, Noida, U.P. 201309, India.

….. Opposite Party.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

Sh. Sohan Lal, ASM on behalf of OP.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a RO Super+ from OP but it did not work properly, so complainant approached, OP company on 04.06.2021. Upon which, service engineer of company replaced some parts and taken Rs.4000/- and assured for its service within 15 days and also assured that if any defect arose within three months then it will be repaired free of costs.  On this assurance, after 14 days, complainant asked the OP for service of the RO but they did not come for service. On 01.09.2021, complainant made complaint qua less water release from RO but the OP keep the matter aside.  On 25.10.2021, such complaint was made and this time repair was done after taking Rs.3800/-. For this act of employees of OP, complainant sent a request by post for refund of Rs.7800/- but of no avail.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant for issuance of directions to Op to refund Rs.7800/- alongwith interest and to replace the defective parts of RO free of costs. Further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss. Litigation costs and other charges, as Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

2.                 OP appeared through its authorized representative and filed written statement and raised preliminary objections qua suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant purchased the said water purifier on 01.12.2016 and complainant raised complaint first time on 04.06.2021 i.e. after 4 years and at that time, the water purifier was out of warranty, hence, the cost of repair was to borne by the complainant.  It is urged that service was provided by D.K. Sales & Service Plaza thus any deficiency in service, allegedly claimed by complainant, may have caused due to the fault of service provider only, hence, OP is not liable for the same. It is further added that many complaints were receiving against the said service provider, as such, OP has closed all business with the said service provide and revoked the status of authorized service provider of OP.  However, the complaint of complainant were attended by OP timely. In the end, prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                 Complainant filed his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 in evidence and closed the same.

4.                 On the other side, affidavit Ex. RW1/A was filed in evidence of OP and closed the same.

5.                 We have heard both the sides and perused the record minutely.

6.                 At the outset, it is worthwhile to mention here that OP has pleaded that the services was provided by D.K. Sales & Service Plaza and they have closed business term with it as was receiving many complaint against them but the OP has failed to prove on record that on the date of repair of the RO system of complainant, they were not in business terms with the D.K. Sales. Further, the OP failed to submit as to what was guarantee/warranty period for the said RO system.  Mere to say that the RO was out of warranty is not sufficient, unless it is supported by any authentic document.  However, the burden of proof of this fact was also on the complainant but he being a layman may not have aware about it. As per documents Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-3 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.4000/- and Rs.3800/- respectively for repairs of the RO system to D.K. Sales & Service Plaza-authorized service center of Kent RO at Bhiwani.

7.                 From the above, we are of considered opinion that the abovesaid D.K. Sales was working as service center of OP company at the time of removing defect(s) in the RO and we have no other reason to disbelieve that the RO was under warranty at that time. As such, the OP company is deficient in providing proper services to the complainant which caused him mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss.  Thus, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the date of order:-

1. To set right the RO system of complainant without taking any charges from him.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand) on account of harassment suffered by complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2000/- (Rs. Two thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

Announced.           

Dated: 19.03.2024