Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Jagjit Singh @ Jaggi against opposite parties i.e. M/s Ravi Sales & Marketing the Institute of English & Management, Ist Floor, Amritsar Road, , Opposite Kanya College, Kapurthala through its Prop. and others seeking direction against them to exchange the mahine on account of inherent defects or to refund of Sales price of Rs.14000/- and also monetary compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. In nutshell facts in the complaint are that complainant was induced by the opposite party No.1 to purchase a machine of water purifier of Kent Grand Mineral bearing machine No.KA-070302051, bearing bill No.7000012 dated 15/4/2007 from the opposite party No.1 who is authorized dealer of opposite parties No.2 and 3. It is, however, alleged that later on machine of water purifier was found to be suffering from many defects i.e. defect in the U.V.lamp, leakage inside of machine, flot switch was not working and the same was not purifying the water. He brought to the notice of opposite party No.1 for repairing the machine but he was avoided for repairing and exchange the machine. He also visited the office of opposite party No.2 at Jalandhar and assurance was given by opposite parties No.1 and 2 that all defects in the machine would be removed free of costs. but the same was not repaired to his satisfaction. He also approached opposite party No.1 at Kapurthala whose mechanics declared that U.V.system and other inner side of the machine are defective which was main cause of the trouble. Even opposite party No.2 was also requested to remove the defects but none of the opposite parties pay any heed to his genuine grievances despite the fact that said machine was also deposited with opposite party No.2 for its repair and the same was not returned to him though he made several visits for return of the machine after due repairs or for refund of the sale price of the machine which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties No.2,3 and 4 failed to appear despite service and hence were proceeded exparte. Opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement. in which he controverted allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim.. It is pleaded that machine provided by the opposite party to the complainant was working properly. This fact is admitted that on the complaint of the complainant, opposite party exchanged the said machine twice but due to mishandling and not properly using the machine, the machine used to cause some trouble. Opposite party have been sending the mechanic to repair the machine which were duly providing requisite services and doing the work at the satisfaction of the complainant.. The proprietor of opposite party No.1 personally took extra care of setting of his complaint and exchanged his machine with a new machine. He even sent executives to the house of complainant for delivery of purified water for drinking purpose during repair period of two days . As amatter of fact, th machine was working properly but due to mishandling of machine, it got some damage but inspite of that opposite party changed the machine with a new machine.. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party so as to justify the claim of the complainant for replacement of new machine or refund of its sale price.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant Jagjit Singh has produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.C1 to C7.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite party produced in evidence affidavits Ex.r1 to R3.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as wll as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service on its part and also unfair trade practice inasmuch as they not only failed to rectify inherent defects in the machine of water purifier of Kent Grand Mineral but also to return the machine sent to them for its smooth functioning. and as such is entitled to the replacement of the machine of water p urifier or refund of its price. On the other hand opposite party No.1 dealer has appeared through counsel . Counsel for opposite party No.1 has argued that opposite party No.1 took extra care for removing grievance of the complainant and exchanged his machine with a new machine and earlier also deputed mechanic to render the requisite services upto the satisfaction of the complainant. Counsel has further urged that machine was working properly but the same was got damaged due to mishandling of the machine by the complainant. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. we find a good deal of merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant. These facts are not disputed that complainant purchased one Kent Grand Mineral water purifier machine for sale price of Rs.14000/- vide bill Ex.C4 dated 15/4/2007 and same is subject to the condition of warranty vide Ex.C3 which clearly lays down that goods supplied against details (back side) are warranted for one year against manufacturing defects from the date of invoice and the services will be provided on demand by the seller/dealer. Complainant has articulated his grievance that machine purchased by him did not perform as per specifications and wa suffering from many defects. There was defect in the U.V. lamp and leakage inside of machine, flot switch was not working and that main defect in the machine was that same was not purifying water. He visited office of opposite party No.1 but he avoided for its repair and exchange of the machine. He had to visit opposite party No.2 i.e. Area Sales Manager, Perfect Solutions, 11, New Jawahar Nagar Market, Jalandhar but the machine was not repaired to his satisfaction nor defects were cleared. Even the mechanic of opposite party No.1 admitted that U.V. system and inner side of the machine were defective which was main cause of the trouble. Complainant also filed affidavit of Surinder Kumar Ex.C6 and affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh Ex.C7 Salesman of the opposite party No.1 . Even the Salesman of the opposite party corroborated the allegations of the complainant that complainant visited their office for repairing the machine but the dealer avoided to its repair and exchange of mahine because of defects in the U.V.lamp, leakage inside of the machine and improper functioning of flot switch and told complainant to contact their Jalandhar office to remove the defects. He deposited the machine with opposite party No.2 i.e. Area Sales Manager, Perfect Solutions, 11, New Jawahar Market, Jalandhar on 16/7/2007 and opposite party NO.2 also issued receipt of the machine to the complainant and the receipt dated 16/7/07 wa also shown to opposite party NO.172 <br /> No doubt opposite party No.1 filed affidavit ex.R1 admitting about purchase of water purifier machine by the complainant from him vide bill dated 15/4/2007 and took up plea that machine was working properly . Subsequent on the complaint of the complainant, they changed the said machine twice but due to mishandling and improper using of the machine by the complainant, the trouble persisted. He has been deputing his mechanic to provide requiste services to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, plea of opposite party No.1 as dealer is false apparently that defective machine of the complainant was changed twice in the light of receipt Ex.C2 dated 16/7/2007 indicating that original machine bearing No.KA - 070302051 purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 was in fact deposited with its Jalandhar office for its repair at the instance of opposit party No.1 and same was not returned to the complainant uptill now without any justifiable explanation. Had opposite party No.1 actually changed the defective machine twice in lieu of original machine bearing No. .KA - 070302051 alleged to be defective, complainant would not have come with grievance about defects in the original machine and deposited with its Jalandhar office. Opposite party, no doubt , introduced Balwinder Kumar Service Engineer vide affidavit Ex.R2 that he alongwith Ashish Kumar Helper attended the complaints of the complainant and provided services to his satisfaction. He deposed that there was no fault in the machine but fault arose due to mishandling and misuse by the complainant. Surprisingly neither Blawinder Kumar nor Ashish Kumar deposed anything about exchange of defective machine twice vide affidavits Ex.R2 and R3 but simply deposed that they corrected the defects in the machine installed in the premises of the complainant. The repeated requests of the complainant to remove the defects in the machine within one year warranty period and non-return of the machine after removal of the defects by the opposite party creates reasonable inference of inherent manufacturing defects in the machine resuling inconvenience an also unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Opposite parties No.2 to 4 have failed to rebut the allegations of the complainant as they have not appeared to produce any evidence in rebuttal. <br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we hold that opposite party No.1 being dealer and opposite parties No.2 to 4 being manufacturer and service provider are jointly and severally liable to refund the price of the machine of water purifier of Kent Grand Mineral to the tune of Rs.14000/- being defective one and also award monetary compensation to the extent of Rs.5000/- for causing mental agony and physical inconvnience on account of deficiency in service besides Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the partie without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 22.5.2008 Member President.