Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 177.
Instituted on : 26.04.2018.
Decided on : 19.08.2019.
Dr.Anil Kumar Dhull, Aged 44 years, son of Sh. Dalip Singh, residing at Address: H.No.1211-Z/21, Hafed Road, Prem Nagar, Rohtak-124001, Haryana, India.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Kohler India Corporation Private Limited, Registered office-138/6, 6th Cross, 10th Main RMV Extension, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangaluru, Karnataka-560080.
CORPORATE OFFICE-6TH Floor, Corporate office tower, Ambience island National Highway-8, Gurugram, District-Gurugram(Haryana)-122001.
- Shree Ganesh Trading Company, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001, Through Proprietor-Mr.Ritesh Gupta.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased Kohler Modern Life wall hung bowl model no.77715-IN from the opposite party No.2 who is authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.52064/-.That at the time of purchase it was conveyed to the complainant that the complainant will get inbuilt jet on WH seat but later on provided with a different product (Modern Life WH Seat without inbuilt jet(77168IN-UF-0). That opposite parties technical team had fixed jet on the complainant’s expenses but the jet installed by the opposite parties is useless as it is throwing the water at all places except at the designated place. That complainant had also spent Rs.50000/- in fixation of tiles in washroom in order to create platform for installation of opposite parties product. That as per the installation instructions provided by the opposite parties the product was installed by plumber hired by complainant in presence and under instructions of Kohler Technical Assistant at the height of 8 inches. With this installation, the height of the said product is so low that it is useless. That complainant is highly dissatisfied with the specification provided by the opposite parties as it has caused him financial loss and mental trauma. That complainant had lodged online complaint on dated 29.11.2017 and sent several e-mails including dated 29.12.2017, 01.01.2018, 04.01.2018, 18.01.2018 and 29.12.2018. That complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties but any reply was not received. That on 06.03.2018, Amit Kumar, Kohler Technical Assistant (KTA) (agent of OP) visited the house of complainant and an agreement was executed between said Amit Kumar and complainant to the effect that company will re-install the product at convenient height of 17 inches and the estimated expenses of Rs.60000/- will be borne by the opposite parties. That insptie of undertaking dated 06.03.2018, the opposite parties have not reinstalled the product and not rectified the defect. That supplying of a defective product without jet and installation of it at a useless height of 8 inches, is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the product with a new one containing inbuilt jet and install it at the level of wall which is convenient to the complainant, or to pay the sum of Rs.100000/- spent by the complainant including price and take back opposite parties product and also to pay Rs.1000000/- on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.05.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party No.1 in their reply has submitted that the contents of purchase and sell of the Kohler Wall mounting WE(Modern Life) wall bowl is correct. That complainant had not made any request for the installation guidance rather had demanded installation PDF from sales person at the time of installation which has been provided by sales person. Complainant was interested in inbuilt Jet Product so KTA informed that we have one Seat cover PURECLEAN which has inbuilt jet but this is not compatible with this Model. That there is no inbuilt jet in this model. Further it will inethical on dealer’s part to assure something which is not in existence, therefore such allegations is mere exaggerations not truth. That the representative of the respondent no.1 told the complainant through mail on dated 18.01.2018 that specifications given to him are as per the ISO standards and other companies of industry are also following the same standards. That on 06.03.2018 there was no agreement as such, rather the opposite parties had sent their KTA Mr. Amit on 06.03.2018 to check the site for the possibilities of modifications. Plumber of customer, customer and their KTA were present there on site on 06.03.3018 and the customer has sent the estimate of very high value(Approx.65000/-) in which he was including new In wall tank, Pure clean seat cover, very high labour cost and tile cost. That the officials of the respondent no.1 tried to convince the complainant to be reasonable on estimate but the complainant did not agree and threatened to file a case against the respondent no.1. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 and dismissal of complaint has been sought..
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence on dated 27.11.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1/1A to Ex.RW1/1B, RW1/3 to Ex.RW1/5 and closed his evidence on dated 10.01.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the installation instructions provided by the opposite parties, the complainant got installed the Wall hung bowl by plumber hired by complainant in presence and under instructions of Kohler Technical Assistant at the height of 8 inches. But with this installation, the height of the said product was so low that it became uncomfortable to use. Complainant made complaint Ex.C2 and also sent legal notice Ex.C3 to the opposite parties to solve the problem and either to replace the product or refund the price alongwith compensation. But on the other hand, contention of the opposite parties is that that specifications given to the complainant are as per the ISO standards and other companies of industry are also following the same standards. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that the product installed by the complainant as per specifications given by the opposite parties become useless as the height of the said product was so low. That opposite parties never provided any plumber/technical person to install the product and had only provided the specifications which were not upto the mark. The contention of the opposite parties that the specifications given to the complainant are as per the ISO standards and to prove the fact opposite party No.1 has placed on record installation instructions Ex.RW1/A. As per this document, it is mentioned in the note that: “Dimension A and B (as shown in picture 6 to 10 above) to be adjusted as per specific site requirement”. Hence this document itself proves that the product was to be installed as per the specific site requirement, which the opposite parties should have to see before installation. But the same was not done and only specifications were provided. Due to which, all the money spent by the complainant on the product as well as on fixation of tiles etc. had gone waste and despite his repeated requests, problem has not been resolved by the opposite parties.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the price of product amounting to Rs.52064/-(Rupees fifty two thousand sixty four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.26.04.2018 till its realization and Rs.25000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of loss suffered to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.08.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
