SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.56,000/- as the initial cost paid for the product ,Rs.20,000/- the amount paid for the service and refill the Bio drops PH and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
The brief of the complaint :
The OP informed and guaranteed to rectify the yellowish and hardness of the water in the well of the complainant, and he has installed a Bio-drops 10X, with Tech code 6, model -10x54 pure Home on 15/12/2017 for an amount of Rs.56,825/-. The complainant has purchased and installed only by believing OP’s promise that it would be for a life time benefit and a nominal amount, will have to be paid only after 5 year of installation of the purifier, for refilling the Biodrops PH. For the 1st 3 years of installation it had worked smoothly and on 10th October 2020 onwards it shows some colour changes and hardness in water. Therefore the complainant has afraid to use the same water for consuming it will affect directly the health of the inmates of the house. Then the complainant informed the matter to OP and the OP visit and verification of the defects, the OP informed the complainant that the defects can be rectified permanently by re-filling Bio drops PH and the cost around Rs.24,000/-. Then the complainant was constrained to refilling the same by spending an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 20/11/2020. The OP has promised that the purifier shall be work in good condition the yellowishness and hardness of the water will be removed and the water shall be ready to use within 24 hours of its refilling. As instructed by OP, the complainant has waited 24 hours to use the same. But after refilling it was in the same condition as before the refilling and totally in useless condition to use the water for drinking and day to day work. Immediately the complainant approached to OP for the issue, the OP also demanded Rs.24,000/- for repairing the same to the normal position. Due to the adamant attitude and poor service of the OP the complainant and his family caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint notice issued to OP. After receiving notice OP appeared before the commission and filed his written version. He contended that before installation the technician visited the complainant’s home and checked the quality of the water of the complainant’s home to inform which unit will suit for the complainant’s home as per the quality of the water of his home. The turbidity and iron content in the ground water of the complainant’s house was enormously high compared to normal range. So the technician advised to install pure home full option with a coagulation unit and nozzle pump unit for the best result. Even though the water purifier will function without coagulation unit. But the complainant preferred Bio drops pure home full option excluding coagulation unit and nozzle pump unit. Moreover the product warranty is only for one year and the product was worked smoothly 3 years of installation. The technician very well instructed after refilling the plant that it should be operated only after 24 hours. But without following the instruction, the complainant and his family members operated prior to the stipulated conditioned time. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. So the complaint may be dismissed.
Then the complainant filed a petition before the commission to appoint an expert commissioner. The petition allowed and Mr.Shithin P.N is appointed as the expert commissioner. After his inspection he filed the report before the commission also.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW and Exts. A1 to A4 , Ext.C1were marked. On OP’s side DW1 was examined and Ext.B1 marked . Both sides filed the argument note.
Issue No.1:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as PW1 by OP. The documents Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his part to substantiate his evidence. According to the complainant as per Ext.A1 is the complaint visit report dtd.21/3/2017 and the technician’s signature seen in the report. Ext.A2 is the tax invoice dtd.20/11/2020 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Ext.3 is the copy of lawyer notice and Ext.A4 is the acknowledgment card. At the time of evidence the complainant deposed that “ OP യുടെ technician install ചെയ്യുന്നതിനുമുൻപ് coagulation unit and nozzle pump unit extra ആയി fit ചെയ്യണമെന്ന് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടിരുന്നു? ശരിയല്ല. എങ്കിൽ മാത്രമേ നിങ്ങളുടെ വീട്ടിലെ വെള്ളത്തിന്ർറെ പ്രശ്നം പരിപൂർണ്ണമായും ശരിയാവുകയുള്ളൂ എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു? അങ്ങനെ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല In the evidence of DW1 who deposed that “refill നു ശേഷവും പ്രശ്നം പരിഹരിക്കപ്പെട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് പരാതിക്കാരൻ വക്കീൽ നോട്ടീസ് അയച്ചിരുന്നു?അതെ. നിങ്ങൾ written reply അയച്ചിരുന്നോ? ഇല്ല. നേരിട്ട് പരാതിക്കാരനുമായി സംസാരിച്ചു. ചില offer ഉം സംസാരിച്ചിരുന്നു. So it is clear that the OP received the amount for the repair charge and as per Ext.A2 it clearly stated the transportation and plumbing charge and less discount Rs.4,000/- grand total Rs.20,000/- received by the OP. As per the expert report he stated that the water purifying system is not working properly. The system has a water leakage and alkalinity, TDS level and hardness of the water have not improved. After receiving the repair charge of the water purifier the OP is not cured the defect. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3:
As discussed above the OP is not ready to repair the water purifier to the complainant. The complainant produced Exts.A1 to A4 documents and Ext.C1 report which clearly shows that the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- as the repair charge of the water purifier. But the OP fails to repair the same. According to the complainant failure to repair the water purifier the OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the OP is liable to cure the defects of the water purifier with free of cost or to refund Rs.20,000/- already received by the OP to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused and cost of the proceedings to the complainant .Thus issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to cure the defects of the water purifier with free of cost or to refund Rs.20,000/- already received by the OP for repairing the water purifier from the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.20,000/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Visit report
A2- Tax invoice
A3-copy of lawyer notice
A4-Acknowledgment card
B1-User manual
C1- Expert report
PW1-Sadique- complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva /Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
