Delhi

East Delhi

CC/79/2016

UTKARSH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

KENT RO - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        79 / 2016

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                15/02/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                03/04/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         06/04/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr Utkarsh kumar, adult 

S/o Sh Rajneet Kumar

R/o  Flat no. 12, D 167,

Ganesh Nagar Complex, Delhi 110092 …………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Kent RO System Ltd.

HO-5A/165,FF

WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi 110005

 

2-M/s Olympia Industries Ltd.

Corp. Office- C-205, Synthofine Industrial Village Estate

Goregaon East, Mumbai 400063…………….……………………………………  Opponents

 

 

Quorum            Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant purchased one Kent Grand +8 Liter mineral water RO+UV water purifier RO system through online Amazon portal for a sum of Rs 14599/ on 13/01/2015 and the same was delivered by M/s Polympia Industries Ltd as OP2 vide invoice no. HR-DEL2-137333431-34728 as marked CW1/1

The said RO system developed problem of leakage no power, so lodged complaint on customer care no., who assured for an early service through OP1. Service engineer came and attended complaint and changed filter and machine. After some time again same problem occurred and complainant lodged complaint. There was no result even after the making numerous calls.

 

On 23/12/2015, again complaint was lodged on customer care center for water leaking and no power supply and also mentioned about warranty tenure which was about to lapse under one year standard limit of warranty. The complaint was attended on 25/12/2015 and service engineer rectified the problems. But after one day, the same problem re-occurred and again made complaint to OP1 on 28/12/2015, but OP1 did not attend the complaint.  Later complainant served a legal notice to OPs for replacing the RO system on 05/01/2015 as marked as Ex CW1/2 to CW1/5.  Both OPs replied legal notice. The complainant was not satisfied by the replies of OPs in reference of legal notice, filed this complaint claiming refund of the cost of the RO system for Rs 14,599/- and compensation of Rs 50,000/-

 

Notices were served, OP2 / Olympia Industries Ltd submitted written statement and stated that they were the seller of the said products of Kent RO through Amazon portal. Being seller, neither they were liable to refund the product nor provide the service, hence OP2 may be exonerated from the array of parties.  OP1 /Kent RO System also filed their written statement and stated that whenever the complaint was received from complainant, the same was timely attended from their authorized outlet and as the said product was under warranty for six months for water filter which was replaced and motor for one year that too was replaced free of cost as annexed their service proof marked here OPW1/1 and 2. It was also stated that company provides such services as per their schedule and on the basis of complaint as and when.  Hence there was no deficiency in their service or any defect in their parts. More so, complainant had used the system for over six months without any problem and all the services were provided as per terms and conditions as per their reply in their legal notice also. Hence, this complaint may be dismissed.  

 

The complainant submitted his rejoinder and evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts were correct as per his complaint and restated that the said RO had manufacturing defect and OP did not replace the product despite of providing defective services every time.  

 

 

OPs also submitted their evidence on affidavit and stated on oath that as per their standard warranty terms and conditions, accessories were replaced and service was always provided.  There was no manufacturing defect in the said product and it was evident from the complaint which showed that defect occurred after six months for leakage of water and no power supply. It was stated that system run of the quality of water being fed and electricity variations. When water quality was non standard or having maximum impurities, the filter gets chocked and water leaking starts power motor also get tripped. The provisions of services were not fixed. As and when customer lodges their complaint, company provides the service, though every six months, the filter and membrane is replaced and service is done. Here in this case also, water filter was replaced and motor was also replaced free of cost.  Hence, there was no deficiency in their services.

Arguments were heard from both parties and order was reserved.

 

By scrutinizing the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that complainant had purchased one RO system on 13/01/2015 having its warranty up to 12/01/2016 and the said RO had complaint about leakage of water frequently and no power supply, but the same was attended and the defect whatsoever were seen, either rectified or parts were replaced by OP. All these services pertain under one year standard warranty tenure. Complainant had neither lodged any complaint after the warranty tenure nor had taken extended warranty facility from OP. Also no evidence is on record which can prove that the said RO system had manufacturing defect and OP2 be held responsible for that and also there was no evidence of deficiency in services by OP1, where OP1 had not attended the complaint whenever it was lodged.

 

We have also scrutinized the citation submitted by OP1. It is not applicable here in this case as OP had not extended warranty to complainant. As we have seen that there was neither manufacturing defect in the said RO nor deficiency in the services or any complaint remained not attended by OP1 and complainant has also not submitted any evidence on record that due

 

 

to defective services or ‘manufacturing defect, complainant has incurred extra financial burden for providing safe drinking water to his family.  

 

So this complaint has no merits and deserves to be dismissed without cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                            Mrs -Harpreet Kaur                                                                                 

    Member                                                                                                                                Member                                                                                    

                                                      Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                                             President