Order-10.

Date-22/12/2015.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that OP is the manufacturer of Livepure Brand Water Purifiers and the OP2 is the Managing Director and In-Charge and responsible for the day to day conduct of all the affairs of the OP1 and complainant has been carrying his business in the from its office mentioned in cause title of the complainant and representative namely Mr. Vikash Kumar Singhania who is authorized to file this complaint and OP3 is the authorized dealer of the OP2.

          On 24-09-2014 complainant purchased one Liverpure Brand Envy Plus R.O + U.V.+U.F. with Pre-filter having batch no. B1EW19C1000041 manufactured by the OP1 from the shop of the OP2 vide Invoice No.PBC/189/14-15 at a consideration price of Rs.15,000/-.

          On 09-10-2014 the said Livepure Envy Plus R.O + U.V + U.F with Pre-filter was successfully installed in the office of the complainant on a payment of Rs.15,000/- and that Pre-filter has an warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of invoice against the manufacturing defects arising out of any faulty or defective material on workmanship.

          But after installation within few days certain faults and manufacturing defects was detected and it was not purifying the water properly since the date of its installation for which the complainant alleged repeated complaint at the customer care/toll free no.18004199399 of the OP1 against complaint nos. JS14101000791, JS15011400641, JS15010700388, JS15012701099 and JS15022100836 but in spite of repeated complaints from time to time the service engineer of the OP1 was unable to remove the faults and the defects arising in the said Livepure Pre-filter and for want of said defective pre-filter employee of the complainant’s company are facing hardship to eat drinking water etc.  Lastly, on 28-02-2015 a complaint was delivered at the office of the OP1 requesting to replace the said Livepure Pre-filter with the new one in spite of such letter the OP1 did not take any step or send any person even after existence of valid warranty period and such sort of conduct on the part of the OP is no doubt negligent and deficient manner of service and at the same time their negative attitude and unfair trade practice compelled the complainant to file this complaint for redressal.

          On the other hand, OP authorized Monibrata Bhanja to appear before this Forum and he appeared before this forum on 06-08-2015 and submitted an application challenging the maintainability of this case.  Subsequently, Ganapati Industrial Pvt. Ltd. submitted a petition stating that as per mutual settlement with the OP the matter has been settled but ultimately OPs did not file any written statement.  Accordingly the case is heard finally.

Decision with Reasons

Fact remains in this case the matter was settled in between the parties as it is submitted by the parties but fact remains no settlement paper duly signed by the parties is filed.  But in the above situation we are considering the mutual settlement in between the parties and also the materials on record we are of view that the mutual settlement would made in between the parties when there is warranty clause which is valid and accordingly as per settlement OP shall have to replace the new pre-filter after immediately without any further delay and to that effect settlement is accepted and accordingly the case is disposed of finally.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on settlement against the OPs and OPs are hereby directed to redress the grievance of the complainant by replacing a pre-filter by installing the same in the office of the complainant by removing the present defective filter and it must be completed within 45 days from the date of this order failing which for violation of the settlement clause OP shall have to pay the entire amount that is the consideration amount of Rs.15,000/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within one month after expiry of 45 days for replacement of the old one by a new pre-filter by installing the same in the office premises of the complainant. 

Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of finally on settlement.

If it is found that OP is reluctant to comply the order in that case penal action u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them.