This is a case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order of refund of Rs.1600/- in respect of dispute Tata Swach Filter, compensation for harassment and mental pain of Rs.15000/- against O.P. No.1 Laxmi Traders and also for punishment of O.P. No.1 for taking excess amount from maximum retail price of the said water filter product from the complainant.

The complaint case in short is that the complainant a resident of Raiganj, Ukilpara purchased a Tata Swach 18 Ltrs. Water Purifier, product ID No.8904043990002 at a price of Rs.1600/- on 25.10.2014 from O.P. No.1, Laxmi Traders, Raiganj. After purchase, he operated the same following the instruction printed in the user manual and also printed in the product packet. But the filter fails to produce clear filtered water. He repeatedly tried, waited for about three hours, but the filter was producing black colour water instead of pure filter water. On 26.10.2014 he took the filter to O.P. No.1 for replacement and also complains to O.P. No.1 as to why he received Rs.1600/- instead of printed price Rs.1499/- for the product. But O.P. No.1 became furious insulted him and did not receive or replace the same. Then on 27.10.2014 he again protested before O.P. No.1 and contacted local Consumer Assistance Bureau and was well advised to take the help of Tata Swach Helpline Toll Free No. 18002-585858. Complainant contacted over telephone and the complaint was received and a complain No. was communicated to him being No. M100003 with an assurance that within 72 hours the problem will be solved by the O.P. No.2/ company. But till date he did not receive any response from O.P. No.1 or O.P. No.2. Therefore complainant files this complaint before this Forum praying for refund of money and compensation etc. as mentioned above.

O.P. No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the case by filing W.V.; while they denied all the allegations of complainant and any deficiency in their part. O.P. No.1 stated that the allegations are false fabricated and motivated but admits that complainant purchased the Tata Swach Filter, but he is a mere retailer neither distributor nor the company authorized person. That complainant was given full demonstration and being satisfied, he purchased the product that if any defect took place or any suggestion required the company will provide directly through Customer/ Consumer Care and O.P. No.1 as retailer has no liabilities. That the product price frequently changes by the company and according to the Price Chart of the company the product was sold to the complainant. That the complainant visited respondent with the product with used and opened condition and wanted to change the product with another which he was unable to replace. O.P. No.1 alleges that it was for rough handling by the complainant that the product developed defect. That the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and he prays for dismissal of the complaint petition with cost.

O.P. No.2 also files written version denying all the allegations of the complainant. That the complainant purchased water filter from O.P. No.1, but he never went to the O.P. No.1 with allegation that the filter was not working. O.P. No.2 stated that the complainant never contacted O.P. No.2 in the toll free helpline the product was having no defect and that he has no evidence to prove that he was supplied with any defective filter and that the petition is harassing and liable to be dismissed.

Complainant files documents like original cash memo, user manual of the said Tata Swach Water Filter, Xerox copy of packet of Tata Swach Filter, Examination-in-chief on affidavit. He was examined as P.W.1 and cross examined by O.P. No.1 and 2. O.P. No.1 also filed documents, original copy of leaflet along with the picture of the product, Tata Swach. Proprietor of Laxmi Traders, Goutam Poddar filed examination-in-chief and he was examined and cross-examined as O.P.W.-1. O.P. No.2 did not adduce any evidence.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, arguments advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

The complainant in the complaint as well as in his evidence in chief stated that he purchased the water purifier on 24.10.2014 from O.P. No.1, it was a Friday. The receipt filed showing Rs.1600/-, Tata Swach 18 ltrs. of Rs.1699/-, product No.890404399002 and Rs.99/- as less, the O.P. No.1 sold the product at Rs.1600/- on 24.10.2014 and it is also admitted by the O.P. No.1. There is an allegation that O.P. No.1 found that in the package of the product, the printed price was Rs.1499/-, but for wrongful gain O.P. No.1 took Rs.1600/- from the complainant. But from the documents filed by the O.P. No.1 in this regard, this Forum observed that the picture of the product advertised in the leaflet showing pictures of three types of Swach purifier (of Rs.1199/-, Rs.1699/- & of Rs.2699/-) along with toll free No. and other particulars and description of the product. Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. No.1 argues that the product sold to the complainant is the variety of Rs.1699/-. From the document a Xerox copy of the packet of the product is filed showing the product No. as mentioned in the complaint and also in the receipt filed by the complainant. But the product was packed in the month of Aug’13, while the complainant purchased the product on 24.10.2014 i.e. long after said packaging. The O.P. No.1 also stated in his W.V. that the product price frequently changes by the company and according to the Price Chart of the company the product was sold to the complainant. To prove this the O.P. No.1 filed the original user manual along with the leaflet with pictures and description of the product, there is no model of Tata Swach filter of Rs.1499/-, but there is a product of Rs.1699/- and the user manual is also showing same picture of the model. Therefore, O.P. No.1 gave receipt showing price Rs.1699/- and took Rs.1600/- actually, showing less Rs.99/-. So, the allegation of the complainant that he deceived the complainant by taking excess price more than the printed price for wrongful gain, is not tenable.

In the complaint, it is stated that when the filter was not working and producing black water instead of filtered water, he immediately contacted the O.P. No.1. But O.P. No.1 did not co-operate with him, misbehaved with the complainant and refused to replace the same with a new one or refund money etc. P.W.-1 also deposed in this regard. Complainant stated further that on 27.10.2014 he contacted local Consumer Assistance Bureau and was advised by the Bureau to contact Customer Care Centre over toll free telephone number, within the period of valid warranty i.e. within six (6) months from the date of purchase. Then O.P. No.2 gave the complaint No. M1003 and assured to solve the problem within 72 hours. But subsequently O.P. No.2 never gave any assistance to the complainant in the W.V. filed by O.P. No.2 rather O.P. No.2 simply denied the fact that complainant ever made any complaint to the consumer care in its toll free number or lodged any complaint etc. At the same time O.P. No.2 admits the purchase of the water purifier by the complainant. Therefore, mere denial of this fact will not make this Forum to disbelieve the case of the complainant. A consumer after purchasing a product will never knock at the door of justice if he is satisfied with the product. On the other hand O.P. No.1 alleges that due to rough handling of the product the filter was not working properly. Therefore, he is not denying the fact that complainant was not satisfied with the product. But both the O.Ps. shook off their liability of giving customer’s satisfaction over the product sold to the consumer. In cross examination O.P.W.-1 deposed that when the complainant came to his shop with defective filter and requested to replace the same, which he cannot and O.P. No.1 contacted with the company immediately, company asked him to acknowledge the customer care number for further contact but he did not receive any further instruction or information from the company. 

Heard arguments of Ld. Lawyers of both sides, perused the complaint, W.V. of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and evidence of the complainant as P.W.1 and also O.P.W.1The complainant has been able to prove his case that he purchased the product Tata Swach Water Purifier on 24.10.2014 and the same was not working since his purchase. He contacted with the O.P. No.1 and thereafter to O.P. No.2 lodged complaint over telephone but with no result. Therefore O.P. no.2 who is liable for giving customer’s care to the complainant failed and neglected to do the same as a service provider. In such circumstances this Forum comes with the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get satisfactory customers care either by replacing or by removing the defect of the product and giving satisfactory service of the product to the complainant. The relief claimed from O.P. No.1 cannot be considered at this stage as O.P.No.1 is neither distributor nor company authorized person but a mere retailer and if any defect take place, the company will provide service to the customer. Therefore the complaint case succeeds in part and against O.P. No.2.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC - 105/2014 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against O.P. No.2 and dismissed on contest against O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.2 is directed either to remove the defect or to replace the Tata Swach Water Purifier 18 Ltrs. with a new one within one month from this day otherwise the complainant is at liberty to put his claim into execution.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.