Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/19/2016

Rajapandian - Complainant(s)

Versus

Luminous Water Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

Rajendra prasad

25 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  28.12.2015

                                                               Order pronounced on:  25.04.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 25^th  DAY OF APRIL 2019

 

C.C.NO.19/2016

 

Mr.Rajapandian @ Pandian,

S/o. Kathamuthu,

No.1007 – 1, Bakthavatchalam 23^rd Street,

Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039.

                                                                                        …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.Luminous Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director,

Plot.No.221, Udyog Vihar Phase-1,

Gurgaon – 122  016.

 

2.Sorna Super Marketing,

No.18, Manali Salai, Chandrasekar Nagar,

Chennai – 600 118, (Opp.Axis Bank ATM)

Rep. by its Proprietor.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 04.03.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.S.V.D.Rajendra Prasad, P.Sankar,

                                                                     J.Vivekanandan

 

Counsel for   1^st opposite party                 : Party in Person

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                        : Ex-Parte (20.06.2016)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant  to direct the opposite parties  to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the product  with 18% interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, physical illness with cost of the complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased   water purifier on 24.10.2014 for a Sum of Rs.10,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party, manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on full payment. From the day one of its purchase the complainant was facing some difficulties in the product.  By 1^st week of September, 2015 the water purifier was not working and hence the complainant  contacted the customer care center of the 1^st opposite party company and also  the 2^nd opposite party to service the purifier. But there was no reply from  both the opposite parties, hence the complainant made a complaint over phone dated 11.09.2015 vide complaint No.JS15091100720 to the 1^st opposite party,  but  there was  no action taken by the 1^st opposite party nor the 2^nd opposite party to rectify  the problem in the water  purifier which was under the warranty period.  Again the complainant had followed up with the 1^st opposite party regarding the complaint dated 11.09.2015, but still there was no action taken by the 1^st opposite party and closed the complaint No.JS15091100720, without rectifying the problem faced by the complainant. Hence the complaint.

 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The company provides warranty of one year with respect to its each new product manufactured by it subject  to certain terms & conditions clearly specified in the warranty card. All the benefits under the warranty were being provided to the complainant in accordance with the terms of warranty during the warranty period of one year i.e. 24.10.2014 to 23.10.2015. The complainant allegedly stated that from day one of the purchase he was facing some difficulties in the product and by 1^st week of September 2015, only  the water purifier was not working and he contacted the opposite parties to service the purifier. It is pertinent to mention here that how can it be possible that the complainant kept quiet  for the period from 24.10.2014 to 1^st week of September 2015 (for around 11 months) when as per his statement (wrong statement) “that from the day one of the purchase he was facing some difficulties in the product, and if that be the case, why he not lodged the complaint(s) with the opposite parties, and why he lodged the complaint only on 11.09.2015 i.e. after almost 11-months of the purchase. Hence, it is clear that the said water purifier was working satisfactorily and it was serviced by the technicians of 1^st opposite party regularly as per the warranty and  the complaint made by the  complainant in this Hon’ble Forum is totally false & baseless and it is only to harass the opposite parties seeing that the expiry of the warranty period is approaching near, and with malafide intention only to take undue advantage of the Consumer Protection Act. On receipt of complaint on 11.09.2015, Service Engineer of 1^st opposite party visited the place of the complainant and found that though the machine was working properly, but since it was under-warranty, he serviced the machine. On receipt of the legal notice, technician of 1^st opposite party contacted the complainant for inspection of the said Water Purifier so that in case of any fault in it, the same be rectified but the complainant did not permit the technician of 1^st opposite party to inspect the Water Purifier and rather asked him to contact his lawyer. The  reply dated 28.10.2015 to the legal notice of the complainant was sent by the 1^st opposite party, wherein it was again submitted by the 1^st opposite party to arrange for permission of the complainant to his technicians to visit his place for inspection of the said machine, and in case it is found, that the said machine is not working properly, 1^st opposite party   was ready to replace the said machine with new one, but no reply came from the complainant.  The complaint of  the complainant is totally false, baseless and filed with malafide intention to take undue advantage of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence it is to be dismissed.      

3. The complainant and the  1^st  opposite party  had come forward with their respective proof affidavit and documents. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party  has not filed any supporting documents.

4. The   2^nd  opposite party who was served notice from this Forum was called absent and  he was set ex-parte on 20.06.2016.

          5. The written arguments of the complainant and the 1^st opposite party  were filed and the oral arguments of the both were heard.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant purchased  Livpure  RO Water Purifier  from the 2^nd opposite party  company on 24.10.14  for Rs.10,000/- vide Invoice Ex.A1. The Product is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. Warranty card  is Ex.A2. The contention of the complainant is that he was facing difficulties in the product from the day one of its purchase and it was also not working,  he made complaints to the customer service  on 11.09.2015 vide complaint No.No.JS15091100720, since there was no action taken, legal notice was issued by  the complainant to the opposite parties  dated 11.09.2015 to replace the product vide Ex.A3 notice. It was replied by  1^st opposite party  in Ex.A4 and  1^st opposite party  has expressed that the machine after the complaint was repaired, even then if there is any fault further they have given consent to replace the product but not complied.

            08. It is pertinent to note that the machine was used almost for a year and then the notice was issued to opposite parties as not working. The 1^st opposite party  would contend that within the warranty period it was serviced by the technician on their part but the complainant  refused to sign the compliance form and even after the receipt of the legal  notice,  technician’s contact to the complainant  ended in vain. When he tried to replace the same at the request of the complainant,  the complainant was not ready to hand over the old machine back and the complaint before the opposite party  was raised only after 11 months of its purchase but within the warranty period, however the complaint was attended by the technician of opposite parties,  therefore there is no deficiency on their part.

  09. The 1^st opposite party has not filed any proof for their periodical service done, as they have pleaded. The complainant had given complaint only after 11 months of its purchase as per the records submitted, hence it is proved that the machine was working till the date of complaint before opposite parties, but it is incorrect that it was not working from the day one of its purchase as alleged by the complainant, but the complaint given before the opposite parties is within its warranty period. There is no proof for the manufacturing defect also. There is no proof also filed by the 1^st opposite party  that they have contacted the complainant   for servicing after receipt of notice and within warranty period or  to replace the parts, if any as alleged by 1^st opposite party.   Hence it is considered as deficiency in service.   On the part of opposite parties, the 2^nd opposite party  has not appeared before the forum to defend the allegations against them.  Therefore the allegations against 2^nd opposite party by complainant  is considered as true and  1^st  opposite party  has agreed to replace the product   in their reply letter but not followed their promise.  All these acts considered as deficiency on the part of opposite parties, accordingly  point No1 is answered.

10. POINT NO.2:

 As per the discussions held  by us  in point No1 , there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties  and opposite parties  are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  The machine was in condition nearly about one year of its purchase  and then the complaint was registered before opposite parties  as per records and the complainant  is still having the machine with him admittedly. The complainant would have suffered mental agony when the machine was not in use for sometime only is to be accepted. There is no proof for the complainant’s physical illness because of   its non functioning for sometime as  alleged. Since the product was in use for sometime and in custody of the complainant, the interest as prayed for  is not considered by this Forum. The complainant prayed for refund of a sum of Rs.10,000/-in their complaint.  Therefore the opposite parties  are directed to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the value of the product on receipt of the old product from the complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to  the complainant, besides a sum  of Rs.5,000/- for costs.                        

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties jointly or severally are directed to refund a sum of Rs.10,000 /-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards  cost of the product to the complainant on receipt of the old product from the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony   besides, a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 25^th day of April 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.10.2014                   Payment of receipt issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Product’s front page and its warranty card

Ex.A3 dated 09.10.2015                   Legal Notice issued by complainant to the 1^st & 2^nd

                                                opposite parties

 

Ex.A4 dated 28.10.2015                   Reply issued by 1^st opposite party

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Complainants voter ID Card

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                                           …… NIL ……                            

 

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT