Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/36/2020

Mr.G.Shyam Sundar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kent RO System Ltd., and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

E.Sridharan

20 Jun 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:12.02.2020

  Date of Reservation     :08.06.2023

  Date of Order              :20.06.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.36/2020

 TUESDAY,THE 20^th DAY OF JUNE 2023

 

G.Shyam Sundar,

S/o Mr.V.T. Gopinath,

“Guru Aishwaraya Apartments”,

No.13, F2, E.V. Perumalswami Street,

Chandra Avenue,

Chitlapakkam,

Chennai – 600 064.                                                         .. Complainant.

 

-Vs-

1.The Manager,  

   “KENT” RO Systems Ltd,

    E-6, 7, & 8, Sector -59,

    Noida,

    Uttar Pradesh – 201309.

 

2.The Regional Manager,

   S.C.SHAH & Co (P) Ltd,

   Old No.193, New No.213,

   G.S.T. Road,

   Chrompet,

   Chennai – 600 044.

   And Corporate Office at;

  

   The Manager,

   S.C. Shah Pvt Ltd

   No.3A, Heavitree Building,

   No.47, Spur Tank Road,

   Chetpet,

   Chennai – 600 031.

 

3.The Manager,

    G.M. Solutions,

    No.4, Madambakkam Main Road,

    Rajakilpakkam,

    Chennai – 600 073.                                            .. Opposite Parties.

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant    : M/s. E. Sridharan

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party  : M/s. M. Udhaya Kumar

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party  : Exparte on 21.07.2022

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party   : Exparte on 13.09.2022

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant and the counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA

(i)     The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to directing the 1^st Opposite Party to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages suffered for the severe mental agony and directing the 1^st Opposite Party to refund the price amount paid for water purifier the sum Rs.17,900/- with subsequent interest of 12% and directing the Opposite Party for payment of cost of this proceeding.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant submits that on 02.02.2019, he purchased water purifier for Rs. 17,900/-, in the name "Kent Water Purifier Prime Plus" (Code: 8421), for drinking purpose from the 2^nd Opposite Party i.e S.C.SHAH & CO (P) LTD". Further the Complainant submits that due to his house shifting, he informed to 1^st Opposite Party KENT service to uninstall the water purifier and to reinstall in the newly shifted house and the same was done by 1^st Opposite Party on 12.03.2019, for which 1^st Opposite Party had issued bill payment slip for sum Rs.300/- as reinstallation charges. Further, within fifty days from the date of purchase of the water purifier, RO working was very poor and for the same on 30.03.2019 Complainant has made a complaint to 1^st Opposite Party for which service employee attended and found that RO membrane and ERT are at fault. Since the fault is major and the Complainant requested the 1^st Opposite Party to replace the new water purifier instead of replacing the parts but 1^st Opposite Party convinced the Complainant and replaced RO membrane Part. Adding fuel to the fire again on 21.10.2019 the said water purifier stopped working and for the same Complainant lodged the complaint to 1^st Opposite Party, further the service employee from 1^st Opposite Party attended the complaint and stated that another electrical part Solenoid valve also not working, and for which new Solenoid valve has to be replaced.

2.     The Complainant further submits that he denied the replacement of new membrane for the second time instead he requested for a new water purifier as per warranty because continuously the fault has been occurring in the water purifier. Further Complainant claims that with utmost good faith the water purifier was purchased from the 2^nd Opposite Party but, right from the beginning itself water purifier was found to be at fault that too with its important membrane itself. Further His request for replacement of new water purifier was denied and 1^st Opposite Party had convinced that the Membrane part will be newly replaced by assuring for its proper working in future. Furthermore on 24.01.2020 the 1^st Opposite Party promise failed and yet again the water purifier stopped working for the third time for which the Complainant claims that the Opposite Party is deliberately cheating the Complainant.

3.     Further the Complainant states that since the water purifier stopped working for three times including the three major membrane and main motor the 1^st Opposite Party would have replaced with new water purifier instead serviced all the times by replacing the membranes by putting the Complainant into severe hardship and mental agony. Hence the Complainant submits that 1st and 2^nd Opposite parties were liable to compensate for the damages caused by selling the poor quality product. Moreover the Complainant submits that he sent email to the 1^st Opposite Party on several occasions i.e from 28.03.2019 to 07.01.2020 for which the 1^st Opposite Party replied dated 02.11.2019 by strictly denying the replacement of the water purifier. Henceforth left with no other alternatives the Complainant caused legal notice dated 16.01.2020 to both 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties instead both the Opposite parties deliberately denied to receive the notice. Hence the Complaint. 

II. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

4.     The 1^st Opposite Party submits that they manage after sales service in a very professional manner and is maintaining a dedicated centralised customer care helpline number to cater to the 'after sales service'. The consumer can avail the service free of cost by registering a service complaint about performance of his product. Further the 1^st Opposite Party submits that after the receipt of the notice from the Hon’ble commission they had deputed its ASM to the residence of the Complainant to resolve the grievances of the Complainant but Complainant did not entertain the visiting service engineer. Thereafter the 1^st Opposite Party offered replacement of the disputed purifier with a new one to which Complainant initially accepted the offer but denied the offer later on. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant had lodged two service requests after re-installation on 12.03.2019. The first complaint was on 30.03.2019 for clogging of RO membrane and second complaint was on 21.10.2019 for failure of one electrical part Solenoid Valve and further submits that the R.O membrane is a consumable item having a limited shelf life of six months and is required to be replaced when its micro sized pores get blocked due to impurities present in the raw water. The electrical part Solenoid Valve was replaced after about eight and half months from the date of purchase and the reason being it failed due to wear and tear and fluctuation in electrical supply.

5.     The Opposite Party further submits that whenever any complaint was lodged by Complainant the Opposite Party attended the service and further states that failure of membrane not attributed to manufacturing defect. The RO membrane has a shelf-life of 6 months worldwide being a consumable item. The life of RO membrane depends upon the quality of raw water, if dust and impurities present in the raw water then RO membrane will clog early. Moreover the Opposite Party denies the allegation of the Complainant that the water purifier is not a good quality product as the membrane of the Complainant has changed free of cost since it was clogged due to impurities in raw water and also denies that the Complainant did not lodge any complaint on 24.01.2020 and insists that periodic maintenance of filters is recommended in consumer manual / warranty conditions of the products. In the present case RO membrane and FRT as well as SV were replaced free of cost but the Complainant persistently insisted for replacement of RO with new one. The Complainant water purifier was working according to standards mentioned on product manual and replacement of water purifier not required on account of replacement of filter and electrical component. Hence in view of the above submissions the Opposite Party prays this Hon'ble Commission that the present complaint be dismissed as it deems improper in the present circumstances of the case.

 

III. The Opposite Parties 2 & 3 set ex parte:

        Notice was sent to the Opposite Parties and was duly served to the Opposite Parties. Despite the notice being served to the Opposite Parties they failed to appear before this Commission either in person or by  Advocate on the hearing date and not filed any written version on their side.  Hence the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 are called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

IV.    The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 12 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A12. The 1^st Opposite Party had filed its proof affidavit. On the side of 1^st Opposite Party no document was marked. Written argument of Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party was filed. 

V. Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

3. To what other relief,  the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

6.     On careful perusal of records of both the parties and their respective submissions it is evident that the Complainant purchased water purifier for Rs.17,900/- on the name "Kent Water Purifier Prime Plus" (Code: 8421) for drinking purpose from the 2^nd Opposite Party i.e S.C.SHAH & CO (P) LTD" as per Ex.A-3 dated 02.02.2019. Complainant further submitted that due to his house shifting, he informed to the 1^st Opposite Party KENT service to uninstall the water purifier and to reinstall the RO purifier in the newly shifted house and the same was done by the 1^st Opposite Party on 12.03.2019 and for which 1^st Opposite Party had issued bill payment slip for sum of Rs.300/- as reinstallation charges as found in Ex.A-4. Further Complainant averred that within fifty days from the date of purchase the water purifier stopped working henceforth on 30.03.2019 made a complaint with the 1^st Opposite Party subsequently 1^st Opposite Party sent their service employee to attend the service and found that RO membrane and ERT are fault henceforth Complainant requested the 1^st Opposite Party to replace the new water purifier instead of replacing the parts. But the 1^st Opposite Party convinced the Complainant and replaced the RO membrane part as seen in Ex.A-5 dated 30.03.2019.

7.     The Complainant further contended that on 21.10.2019 again the water purifier stopped working for which the Complainant lodged the complaint with the 1^st Opposite Party subsequently the service employee from 1^st  Opposite Party attended the complaint and stated that another electrical part Solenoid valve not working hence it should be replaced. The Complainant averred that he denied the replacement of new Solenoid Valve instead requested for a new water purifier as per warranty because of persistent issues with the RO water purifier and also stated that with utmost good faith the water purifier was purchased from the 2^nd Opposite Party but from the very initial the water purifier is not working properly. In contrast the 1^st   Opposite denied the replacement of new RO instead assured and convinced the Complainant that the water purifier will work properly once after replacing the Solenoid valve, hence replaced as seen in Ex.A-6 dated 21.10.2019.

8.     The Complainant further alleged that yet again the RO water purifier stopped working for the 3^rd time causing hardship and further contends that he frequently sent mails to the Opposite parties seeking to replace the defective RO purifier with the new one as all the components are getting failed hence why the Opposite Party is replacing the spares parts every now and then but denying the Complainant request of new RO replacement as seen in Ex.A-7 the series of mails dated from 28.03.2019 to 06.01.2020 sent to the Opposite parties for necessary actions. Replying to the same the 1^st  Opposite Party denies the Complainant plea for replacement of new RO stating that they serviced as per the terms as found in Ex.A-8 dated 02.11.2019. Aggrieved by the Opposite Party response Complainant caused notices as seen in Ex.A-9 to Ex.A-12.

9.     On the other hand in spite of notices served to all the Opposite parties, Opposite parties 2 & 3 are called absent hence Opposite Party 1 is the contesting party. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that they manage after sales service in a professional manner and are maintaining a dedicated centralised customer care helpline number to cater after sales service. In regard to the above case the 1st Opposite Party submitted that on receipt of the notice from the Hon’ble commission they had deputed its ASM to the residence of the Complainant to resolve the grievances of the Complainant but Complainant did not entertain the visiting service engineer. Thereafter the 1^st Opposite Party offered replacement of the disputed purifier with a new one to which Complainant initially accepted the offer but denied the offer later on. It is pertinent to note that there are no relevant documents filed by the 1^st Opposite Party to substantiate the claim that they offered a replacement of RO water purifier to the Complainant.

10.    The 1^st Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainant had lodged two service requests after re-installation on 12.03.2019. The first complaint was on 30.03.2019 for clogging of RO membrane and second complaint was on 21.10.2019 for failure of one electrical part Solenoid Valve and further submits that the R.O membrane is a consumable item having a limited shelf life of six months and is required to be replaced when its micro sized pores get blocked due to impurities present in the raw water. The electrical part Solenoid Valve was replaced after about eight and half months from the date of purchase and the reason being it failed due to wear and tear and fluctuation in electrical supply. It is pertinent to notify that the 1^st Opposite Party aforesaid statement in addressing the defect of the said RO water purifier is not justifiable as the Complainant persistently insisted the Opposite Party through his frequents mails as seen in Ex.A-7 requesting to replace the said RO where and when the technical glitch resurfaced again and again instead Opposite Party denied the Complainant plea rather convinced the Complainant for better performance post replacement of the spare parts amounts to deficiency.

11.    If the Opposite Party might have considered the Complainant request in the initial stage itself by replacing the defective one with a new RO this issue might have evitable. The 1^st Opposite Party further submitted that failure of membrane not attributed to manufacturing defect. The RO membrane has a shelf-life of 6 months worldwide being a consumable item. The life of RO membrane depends upon the quality of raw water, if dust and impurities present in the raw water then RO membrane will clog early. Moreover the 1^st Opposite Party denies the allegation of the Complainant that the water purifier is not a good quality product as the membrane of the Complainant has changed free of cost since it was clogged due to impurities in raw water and also denies that the Complainant did not lodge any complaint on 24.01.2020 and insists that periodic maintenance of filters is recommended in consumer manual / warranty conditions of the products and also reiterates that in the present case RO membrane and FRT as well as SV were replaced free of cost but the Complainant persistently demanding for replacement of RO with new one.

12.    Further the 1^st Opposite Party placed their reliance on the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Ranjeet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines "the deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service", therefore Opposite Party no. I cannot be held liable for deficiency of service as alleged by the Complainant.

13.    On careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of a considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service by not considering the Complainants plea of replacing the new RO purifier as within few days from the date of purchase the RO purifier started giving trouble as seen in the sequence of mails sent by the Complainant to the Opposite parties instead convinced the Complainant and changed the spare parts on various occasions as the problems in the water purifier resurfaced amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered. 

 

POINTS NO 2 & 3

14.    As discussed and decided in  Point No.1,  that the 1^st  Opposite Party have committed deficiency in service, 1^st Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.17,900/- towards the price amount paid for water purifier along with a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.17,900/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Only) towards the price amount paid for water purifier along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs of the litigation, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amount of Rs.17,900/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

Complaint as against 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties stands dismissed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 20^th of  June 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	14.03.2013	Aadhar card of Complainant as proof of address
Ex.A2	04.11.2019	Kiruba Gas Agency Tax Invoice as proof of Address
Ex.A3	02.02.2019	Water Purifier purchase Invoice from 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A4	12.03.2019	Water Purifier Re-installation Invoice from 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A5	30.03.2019	Water Purifier parts replacement service Invoice from 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A6	21.10.2019	Water Purifier parts replacement service Invoice from 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A7	28.03.2019 to 06.01.2020	Email sent to 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties for several times from the Complainant (22-emails)
Ex.A8	02.11.2019	Reply from the 1st Opposite Party to the Complainant – Denying for Replacement of New Product
Ex.A9	16.01.2020	Legal Notice caused by Complainant to 1st  and 2nd Opposite Parties with postal receipts
Ex.A10	17.01.2020	Legal Notice returned from 1st Opposite Party (closed cover)
Ex.A11	17.01.2020	Legal Notice returned from 2nd Opposite Party (closed cover)
Ex.A12	23.01.2020	Legal Notice caused to 1st Opposite Party Head Office with track consignment

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                     T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                 B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                                                      MEMBER I                                                    PRESIDENT