BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 21^st DAY OF JUNE 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing hardship and inconvenience together with cost of litigation.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant purchased a water purifier of the OP-1 company.  OP-2 is a service provider authorized by OP-1.  OP-3 is also a authorized service provider of OP-1.  The complainant purchased the said KENT Mineral RO Water Purifier on 02.12.2010.  The personnel from OP-2 installed the said Water Purifier on 11.12.2010.  The said product was covered with one year warranty period.  The men from OP-2 came time to time and provided the required service till December 2011.  That after one year he received a call and they stated that they are coming to provide service as the warranty period of 12 months is completed.  According to the maintenance conditions replacement of sediment, activated carbon and Micronicfilter at every 12 months is required.  The concerned people came and changed the sediment and carbon filter and offered to provide annual maintenance on payment of Rs.3,500/- and promised that they will provide free service for one year including replacement of parts.  The said persons having collected a sum of Rs.3,500/- from the complainants issued receipt which is in the name of OP-3 stating that OP-3 is also authorized service provider of KENT.

That during second week of March, the complainant found the difference in taste of water and as per the conditions RO membrane has to be replaced once in 2 years.  Then he called OP-3 who had collected annual maintenance charges from him and raised a complaint on 16.03.2013.  OP-3 having received the complaint gave him complaint No.4624.  However, nobody came for 3 days.  Then again the complainant called OP-3 on 19.03.2013 and requested them to attend the issue.  That the complainant waited all the day but nobody turned up.  Therefore, he informed KENT Bangalore office and requested them to send their people.  On 21.03.2013 men from OP-2 came but refused to provide service stating that though they are authorized service provider for area they have not been paid any maintenance charges.  The complainant was confused and was wondering as to how could OP-3 being not a authorized service provider for the said area could know the completion of warranty period of 12 months and also the phone number of the complainant.  The contact information of the complainant and service details were compromised to the 3^rd party.  The complainant then requested the men from OP-2 to provide service promising him to pay service charges.  Finally they provided service and collected charges of Rs.2,700/- from the complainant.  OP-3 despite receiving complaint from complainant failed to provide any service till today despite having collected annual maintenance charges of Rs.3,500/-.  Since the drinking water is essential and basic needs of life and since the wife of the complainant was pregnant.  The complainant was constrained to get the purifier serviced through OP-2 by paying Rs.2,700/- despite paying AMC charges of Rs.3,500/- to OP-2.  Though OP-3 is not a authorized service provider to the area of the complainant they visited the complainant and collected annual maintenance charges and cheated him.  OP-3 also failed to respond to the complaint lodged by the complainant and failed to provide services despite having collected AMC charges.  OP-3 having collected all the information regarding the complainant and product have managed to collect AMC charges of Rs.3,500/- without any authority and cheated the complainant.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for putting him great hardship and inconvenience together with cost of litigation.

3. In response to the notice, official from OP-1 appeared but failed to file their version as well as affidavit evidence.

4. OP-2 & 3 in response to the notices appeared through advocate and filed their separate version.      

The brief averments made in the version of OP-2 are as under:

It is true that the OP-2 attended the Water Purifier purchased by the complainant during its warranty period of one year till December 2011.  OP-3 is also an authorized service provider and as requested by the complainant provided necessary service to the complainant by charging annual maintenance of Rs.3,500/-.  This OP is not aware of any complaint lodged with OP-3 by the complainant.  It is false to allege that OP-2 refused to provide services to the complainant on the ground that he has not paid them annual maintenance charges though they are authorized service provider for the area.  OP-2 has provided necessary service to the complainant when requested by charging Rs.2,700/-.  The authorized service providers are always ready to attend the request made by the complainant/customers as and when necessary complaints are given.  The complainant has made false allegations against this OP without there being any valid cause.  Therefore, OP-2 prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5. OP-3 having entered their appearance through their advocate filed version contending in brief as under:

It is true that OP-2 being authorized service provider installed the water purifier purchased by the complainant on 11.12.2010 and provided maintenance service during warranty period of one year.  OP-3 is also authorized service provider and on the request of the complainant provided service to the complainant by issuing bill for Rs.3,500/- towards annual maintenance charges.  That the complainant has not at all lodged any complaints on 16.03.2013 and 19.03.2013 as alleged in the complaint.  OP-3 has never received any complaint from complainant and has also not given any complaint at any time.  OP-3 having collected annual maintenance charges are ever ready to provide necessary service to the complainant if requested.  OP-3 is extending best possible service to the complainant.  The complainant has not lodged any complaint with OP-3 till today for any problem with the said water purifier.  OP-3 has never cheated the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  Therefore, OP-3 prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

6. The complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint submitted his affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  OP-2 as well as OP-3 also submitted their respective evidence by way of affidavit in support of their respective contention in the version.  The complainant has filed his written arguments.  Both the parties have submitted certain documents in support of their respective contentions.

7. On the rival contention of all the parties to the complaint, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        8. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the versions, sworn testimony of complainant as well as OPs.2 & 3, written arguments submitted by complainant, documents produced by both sides and other materials placed on record.

9. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

10.  Admittedly the complainant purchased a Water Purifier manufactured by OP-1 on 02.12.2010.  OP-2 being one of the authorized service provider of OP-1 installed the said water purifier in the house of complainant on 11.12.2010 and provided him maintenance service during the warranty period of one year till December 2011.

11. The official of OP-1 though appeared but failed to inform us as to who is the authorized service provider for the locality where the complainant resides.  OP-2 also in his version as well as in the affidavit evidence did not specifically mention as to who are all the service providers in the area where the complainant resides.  The complainant claims that in the first week of December 2012 he received a phone call claiming to be from KENT and informed that the warranty period of 12 months is completed and their people are visiting him for maintenance of the purifier and accordingly the personnel from OP-3 visited the complainant and attended the maintenance and offered annual maintenance for a sum of Rs.3,500/- and collected the said amount from the complainant and issued receipts which is in the name of OP-3.

12. The complainant having paid annual maintenance charges of Rs.3,500/- to the OP-3, believing that they are the authorized service providers for the said area, called them up on 16.03.2013 when he found that the RO membrane of the purifier has to be replaced.  The complainant further alleges that OP-3 having received the complaint on 16.03.2013 gave him complaint No.4624 but failed to turn up even for continuous 3 days.  Therefore, he again called them over phone on 19.03.2013 and requested them to attend the issue immediately.  However none from OP-3 turned up till evening.  Therefore he called OP-1 and informed them about the problem he faced with the water purifier and they told him that they will be sending their men.  Complainant claims that on 21.03.2013 the men from OP-2 came to him but refused to provide service as they have not been given annual maintenance charges.  On the request of complainant they provided him service charging a sum of Rs.2,700/-.  OP-2 admits that on the request of complainant they visited the complainant and attended the complaint and provided service by charging a sum of Rs.2,700/-. 

13. The question now is as to why OP-3 failed to provide service to the complainant having collected annual maintenance charges of Rs.3,500/-.  OP-3 admits for having received the said sum of Rs.3,500/- but claims that they never received any complaint from complainant.  Therefore they did not attend him.  The complainant to substantiate that he made calls to OP-3 on 16.03.2013 and 19.03.2013 produced the call records from his mobile phone.  The call records establishes that the complainant has dialed OP-3 to the number given by them in their receipt on 16.03.2013, at 12.42 PM as well as at 12.43 PM and has talked for about 3 minutes.  The complainant has again dialed to OP-3 on 19.03.2013 at 10.44 AM and has talked few minutes.  The copy of the call records produced by the complainant falsify the defence set up by the OP-3 that they never received any call from complainant regarding the problem with the said water purifier.  Despite the above said call records produced, the OP-3 tried to introduce a manipulated roster and took up a defence that they never received any complaint from the complainant on the above mentioned dates.  It is apparent from the conduct of OP-3 that they deliberately did not provide necessary and requisite services to the complainant despite having collected annual maintenance charges of Rs.3,500/-.  This conduct of OP-3 amounts to deficiency of service on their part.  In not responding to the complaint lodged by the complainant, the OP-3 has put the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and severe mental agony.

14. OP-2 though claimed themselves as the authorized service provider to the said area, have provided all the information regarding the product purchased by the complainant, warranty period, his phone number etc., to OP-3 as a result OP-3 has called the complainant claiming themselves to be a service provider to the said area and have collected annual maintenance charges of Rs.3,500/-.  It is only because of OP-2, the OP-3 could get all the personal information regarding product and the complainant.  OP-2 is certainly not expected to leak such information to an un authorized person without consent or intimation from the complainant.  This conduct of OP-2 amounts to unfair trade practice.

15. For the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that, the complainant is successful in proving deficiency of service on the part of OPs.2 & 3.  It is alleged by the complainant that OP-2 has compromised the product information and his phone number etc., by providing the same to OP-3.  However there is no credible material on record to believe that OP-2 has provided the product information and other information pertaining to the product to OP-3.  It is quite possible OP-3 might have collected the said information from OP-1 as an authorized service provider.  Therefore, we cannot held OP-2 responsible for leakage of said information to OP-3.  Moreover we have no credible material on record to believe that OP-2 alone is authorized service provider to the said area.

16. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct OP-3 to refund a sum of Rs.3,500/- collected by him towards annual maintenance charges and also to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency of service together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.    

17. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

18. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP-3 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,500/- collected from the complainant towards annual maintenance charges and also to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency of service apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

The complaint against OPs.1 & 2 is dismissed.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 21^st day of June 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 20.08.2013.

1. Sri.Girish Gaitonde

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party-2 dated 04.09.2013.

1. Sri.Shiva.  

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party-3 dated 04.09.2013.

1. Sri.Nagesh.  

MEMBER                            MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*