Sri A.K.Patra,President

 JUDGMENT

              1. The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  7 L RO Black(61022) of Whirlpool Brand  vide order  ID INY 194600389,Invoice No.992 dt.27.11.2020  from Opposite Party No.2   with a  consideration of Rs.9,500/-.  After few months of its use the said RO was found defective and the complainant reported the matter vide Complaint ID BHU 28042185010. On 28.04.2021 one service technician visited the premises of the complainant and confirmed that, there is some manufacturing defect in the RO membrane and the same got replaced free of cost. But  again on 17.06.2021 the same problem started  and the complainant raised complaint vide complaint ID BHU 17062171861  through mail and thereafter  got the service  and paid Rs.1150/- though the defect was within the its warranty period. Again from 4.08.2021 same problem arose relating to filtration and discharge flow and the complainant raised complaint vide ID 05082159914 for which  the service technician attended  the complainant  and found defect in RO membrane. Thereafter the complainant sent several remainders to the Opp.Party No.1 but the OPs did not respond and despite of several attempts the complainant did not get any response from the Opp.Parties  .Hence, this complaint.

              2. The complainant prayed for an order directing  the Opp.Party to refund the cost of RO i.e Rs.9500/- , Compensation of Rs.4000/-,litigation expenses Rs.3500/- and to refund Rs.1150/- which the complaint paid for service charges.

3.  On being notice, the O.P No.1(one)  appeared through their advocate and filed written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The Opp.Party No.2(two) remained absent and did not contest the case though notice was properly served.

4.  It is submitted by the Op NO.1  that the complainant has purchased a 7LRO Black(61022) of Whirlpool make from the Opp.Party No.2 on dt.27.11.2020 on payment of Rs.9500/- but there is no warranty on the Purifier however , there is  one year warranty only on Membrane. After receipt of complaint from the complainant the Opp.Party No.1 visited the premises of the complainant and replaced the defective part i.e. Membrane Filter and again on 17.06.2021  the engineer of the company (op no. 1) visited the premises of the complainant and found  carbon & plus sediment filter is not working properly and as there is no warranty on the carbon & plus sediment filter, the engineer replaced the same and charged Rs.1150/-  and the complainant was satisfied as the machine is running OK and put his  signature on the job sheet. Again as per the complaint the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant  and  found that Membrane Filter is not working and as the said part was not available,  the Opp.Party No.1 wants some time to replace the same and the said  defective part was replaced free of cost on 17.08.2021  accordingly , the RO machine was running properly. There was no manufacturing defect in the alleged RO machine. The complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. After hearing of the parties and careful perusal of the case record   this Commission found that the complainant has time & again raised complaint for the same defects in the RO machine and the technician/engineer as well as Opposite Party No.1 attended the complaint .It is claimed that, they have rectified the defects and in the mean time the warranty period of one year is over. The complainant stated that after few months of   its purchase   the RO machine did not function properly and time & again it required service.  In spite of repeated requests the Opp.Party did not respond to the complainant. Here it is observed  that,  the OPs failed to restore its normal functioning of the alleged goods/RO for which the complainant suffered financial hardship & mental agony and finding no other option the complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance .The complaint is found to be in time and well within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Commission.  

6. It is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the defects which arose within the warranty period .The alleged RO machine was found defective time & again is proved on admission of the Op No.1 that the defects raised by the complainant were attended by the op time to time but the Ops failed to remove the defects within its warranty period even though the period of warranty was over. When a defect arose within its warranty period and same problem continue beyond its warranty period certainly proved the inherent manufacturing defect of the goods and the Op have failed to rectify the defects for proper function of the goods/RO machine to the satisfaction of the consumer/complainant certainly deficient service.

 7. The complainant purchased the RO machine for his family to drink pure water by paying an amount of Rs.9500/-but as the said machine did not function properly giving troubles after its purchase and even after attending of the complaint by the OPS . The wish of drinking pure water is defeated as the OPs failed to rectify the defects completely is nothing but  unfair trade practice & deficient  service on the part of the Ops no doubt caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant as such  the complainant is entitle  to be compensated by the OPS .

8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OP No. 2 (two) has sold a defective RO machine to the complainant deliberately withholding shortcomings of the RO machine and the Ops failed to rectify the defects though attend the

complaint time & again. Hence a new RO machine   of the same model with fresh warranty s to be replaced without charging any extra amount to the complainant. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part with the following directions.

ORDER

              The Opposite Party No.2(two)  is directed to  replace  the   RO Machine  with a new one of the same model with fresh warranty to the complainant without charging any extra amount and pay monetary  compensation of Rs.5,000/- which include litigation  cost  to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receiving of this order   or in alternative pay back the cost of the said RO machine i.e.Rs.9,500/- with  interest @ 9% per annum  from the date of filing of this complaint i.e.10.11.2021 till its actual payment. The O.P No.2 is at liberty to recover the awarded amount from the O.P. No.1 at his own cost. The consumer complaint is party allowed in the above terms, pending application if any is also stands disposed of accordingly.

              Pronounced in open Commission today on this 3rd day of September 2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

              Copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost and be uploaded on the website of this Commission of the parties.

Order accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

    Sd/

 President

       I agree

Sd/-                         Sd/-

                                 Member                  President