Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/29

Sri Rabindra Narayan Dasgupta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.S.Eureka Forbes Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

29 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 29 of 2014

Sri Rabindra Narayan Dasgupta
S/O- Late Sashadhar Dasgupta
Gandhighat, Agartala- 799001.        ...........Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd.
Sales Office- Rajat Villa,
Dhaleswar Road No. 1,
Agartala-799001.                .........Opposite Party.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant         :  Complainant in person.
                  
                           
For the Opposite party    : Sri Prasanta Kr. Pal
                  Sri Mihir Kanti Roy,,
                  Mrs. Debjani Bhattacharjee,
                  Sri Ajay Kr. Chowdhury and
                  Sri Prabir Kr. Chakraborty,
                  Advocates.
                    

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   29.08.15

J U D G M E N T     
        Received the case record on remand from the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala, West Tripura along with a copy of judgment dated 09.02.15 passed in Appeal No- F.A- 22 of 2014 whereby the judgment dated 30.07.14 passed by this Forum exparte has been set aside with a direction to dispose of the case giving opportunity to the O.P. Firm to submit written objection and adducing evidence.
    
2.        This is a complaint U/S 12 of he Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Rabindra Narayan Dasgupta of Gandhighat, Agartala against the O.P., M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Agartala Sales Office, over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.P.

3.        The case of the complainant as gathered from the record is that about 14/15 years back he had purchased a water purifier (Aqua Guard) Model - Classic variety, manufactured by the O.P. firm. Since purchase, the said water purifier was functioning satisfactorily. For the last 2/3 years it started giving troubles. One Sri Sanjib Bhattacharjee, an employee of the O.P. firm, suggested him to replace the old water purifier by a new one under exhange offer scheme. On being satisfied with the assurance given by the said Sanjib Bhattacharjee and another Sri U. Sinha, In-charge of the Sales Office, he agreed to purchase a new water purifier (Aquaguard), model-  Enhance (U.V). On 15th May, 2013, the new water purifier was installed in his house under the supervision of the said Mr. U. Sinha the complainant made payment of Rs.10,990/- being the price of the new water purifier. He got Rs.1000/- as rebate under exchange offer scheme. After 5 months of installation of the new water purifier it started giving troubles. On his complaints, the authorized service engineer of the O.P. firm attended his calls on 29.11.13, 06.12.13, 26.12.13 and lastly on 01.01.14. On every occasion the service engineer rectified the defects but it was short lived. After 01.01.14  the new water purifier become completely non-functioning. Despite  his repeated requests the service engineer of the O.P. firm did not attend his calls to remove the defect of the water purifier. Finding no other alternative, he issued notice to the O.P. firm on 24.02.14 asking them to take back the defective water purifier and refund the price of the same, but all to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

4.        In obedience  to the direction given by the Hon'ble State Forum, the O.P. Firm appeared before this Forum and contested the case by filing written objection. 

5.        The O.P. Firm, in their written objection, resisted the  claim of the complainant stating interalia that since purchase of the new water purifier the complainant received most satisfactory service. Upon receipt of complaints from the complainant as to the non-functioning  of the new water purifier on 29.11.13 , 06.11.13, 26.12.13 and 01.01.14, the service engineer of the O.P. Firm attended all the calls and put the water purifier in order with full satisfaction of the complainant which would be evident from the 'Service Requests Activity Reports'.  According to the O.P., the  occasional disorder of the water purifier happened due to negligence, abuse, misuse and faulty care of the same on the part of the complainant. During the course of servicing of the water purifier it was noticed by the service engineer that the flow of water from the pipe line was not proportionate due to formation of sedimentation in the galvanized pipe line at source. So, the complainant was suggested to attach a small pump ahead of filter if not immediately could change the entire supply pipe lines to get required result. But the complainant did not adhere to their suggestion. It is denied that the O.P. Firm was deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner whatsoever. 

6.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    
    Exhibit 1- Cash memo dated 15.05.13,
    Exhibit 2- Letter dated 04.02.14,
    Exhibit 3 Series- 3 service requests activity reports.

7.        On the other hand, one Sri Sandip Dutta, the service engineer of the O.P. Firm, has examined himself as O.P.W 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit A – Retail invoice dated 21.05.13,
    Exhibit B- Warranty card,
    Exhibit C Series- Service requests activity reports( 4 sheets).

        FINDINGS:

8.        The points that would arise for consideration in this case are:
        (i) Whether the O.P. firm adopted unfair trade practice and was deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

9.        We have heard arguments advanced by the complainant in person and the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.

10.        There is no denial of the fact that the disputed water purifier (Aquaguard), model- UV WE system manufactured by the O.P. firm was installed in the house of the complainant on replacement of the old one on 15th May, 2013 under exchange offer scheme and he paid Rs.10,990/- being the price of the new water purifier out of total value of Rs.11,990/-. He got rebate of Rs.1000/- under the said exchange offer  scheme. The water purifier was installed by the service engineer of the O.P. firm.  It is the allegation of the complainant that after 5 months of installation of the new water purifier it started giving troubles. On his requests, the service engineer of the O.P. firm had attended the calls on 29.10.13, 06.12.13, 26.12.13 and lastly on 01.01.14 to rectify the defect. The defect as appeared was removed for the time being but it was short lived. On every occasion after few days of repairing of the water purifier it again started giving troubles. After 01.01.14, inspite of repeated calls, the service engineer of the O.P. firm did not attend the calls to put it in order.

11.        The O.Ps controverted the allegations levelled by the complainant saying that upon receipt of complaints made by the complainant, the service engineer of the O.P. firm attended the calls on  every occasion and made proper service of the water purifier to the full satisfaction of the complainant which would be evident from  the 'service requests activity reports' (Exhibit- C series). According to the O.P., the complainant was not getting high level flow of purified water from the water purifier as there was not proper flow of water from the supply pipe line for formation of sedimentation due to its old age. The service engineer adviced the complainant to attach a water pump ahead of filter to get required results, but he did not take necessary steps to improve water pressure from the supply pipe line. The occasional disorder of the water purifier happened due to negligence and faulty care of the water purifier by the complainant not due to defect of the product.

12.        From the pleadings as well as evidence adduced by the complainant is is clear that the old water purifier (Aquaguard) model- Classic Variety was installed in his house about 14/15  years back. He made no complainant regarding its functioning. The old water purifier started giving troubles only for the last 2/3 years probably due to its old age. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant was not satisfied with the performance of the old purifier. The old purifier was replaced by the present one at the initiation of the service engineer of the O.P. firm under exchange offer scheme. If there was low flow of water from the pipe line due to formation of sedimentation therein, certainly similar problem would have arisen in the case of old water purifier but nothing of this sort had happened.

13.        The O.P.W.1, Sandip Dutta, the service engineer of the O.P. firm, in his evidence said that he had installed the new water purifier in the house of the complainant on 15.05.13. It is presumed that at the time of installation of the new water purifier he had checked and assessed the flow of water from the supply pipe line to ascertain whether the water purifier would work properly. It has come out from his evidence that when the water purifier started giving troubles after 5/6 months of its installation he suggested the complainant to attach a mini pump ahead of filter. It can not be said that the flow of water from the supply pipe line became low within 5 months of installation of the new water purifier. From the materials on record it has not been conclusively proved that the flow of water from the supply pipe line was low, for which required level of filterized water was not coming out of the water purifier. The O.P. could have made a prayer before this Forum to get the supply pipe line of the complainant tested by an engineer of water supply department to substantiate their plea that low pressure of water from the supply pipe line was because of formation of sedimentation in the pipe line and for that reason the water purifier was not working properly. But nothing of this sort was done. In absence of which it can not be said with certainty that there has been low pressure of water from the supply pipe line and this was the sole cause of non working of the water purifier properly. Admittedly, after 5/6 months of installation of the new water purifier it started giving troubles other wise the complainant would not have made complains with the O.P. repeatedly on 29.10.13, 06.12.13, 26.12.13 and 01.01.14. The 'service requests activity reports' (Exhibit-3 series) support the version of the complainant in this regard. It is true that on every occasion the service engineer of the O.P. firm attended the calls and rectified the defect  for the time being. This would tend to show that the new water purifier was not free from any mechanical defect. Had it been free from any defect, the complainant would not have made complaints 4 times within the span of 3/4 months of its installation. If attachment of a mini pump ahead of the filter was a condition for smooth working of the new water purifier, the service engineer of the O.P. firm ought to have told this fact to the complainant at the time of installation of the water purifier. The service engineer of the O.P. firm by not doing so adopted unfair trade practice.

14.        It is needless to say that the complainant being an octogenarian suffered a lot for not being able to utilize the service of the water purifier for a long time owing to its non functioning which, in our considered opinion, amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

15.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. The O.P. Firm is directed to replace the disputed water purifier of the same brand and model by a new one or refund the price of the water purifier amounting to Rs.11,990/-(Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred and ninety) within 6(six) weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the amount payable to the complainant will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full. This apart, the O.P. will pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand) to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment including Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand) as costs of litigation.    
        
16.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.