Tamil Nadu

Thiruvallur

CC/38/2012

B.K.Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s . Aqua Star RO System - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

29 Dec 2014

ORDER

Date of Complaint                     :    20.12.2012

Counsel for  Complainant              :    S. Natarajan   

Counsel for Opposite party            :     Exparte

O R D E R   

THIRU. P. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

             Complaint under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to take back the defective water purifier and      repay the costs Rs.16500/- with interest and to refund a sum of Rs.4500/- towards repair charges and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and pain and Rs.10,000/- for the unfair trade practice an Rs. 10,000/- as costs of this complaint to  complainant.

  

1. The Case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

The complainant to give good drinking water for the inmates of the Prashanthi Women’s Hostel contacted the opposite party who were dealing with manufacture and sale of water purifiers besides other products and on contract by  e.mail, opposite party’s reply dt. 1.10.2011 gave details of water purifier with warranty of two years.  The total price payable was Rs.16,000/- inclusive of price of old unit exchange at Rs.3000/-.     The opposite party had only confirmed by his e.mail dt. 19.10.2011 the water purifier cost at Rs.12,500/- with one year replacement warranty and two years service warranty, contrary to their earlier email on 1.10.2011.   Thereafter the complainant  on believing the assurances on quality product given by the opposite party, placed orders and purchased a water purified on 19.10.2011.   After installation the water purifier suffered  from some problems.  Hence the complainant sent an e.mail letter to the opposite party on 21.6.2012 and opposite party’s technicians rectified the defects the above said machine.   Thereafter the complainant found that the original spares of the water purifier were missing and complained of the same to the opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party committed deficiency in service.     Hence the opposite party is directed to take back the defective water purifier and repay the costs Rs.16500/- with interest  and to refund a sum of Rs.4500/- towards repair charges and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and pain and Rs.10,000/- for the unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- as costs of this complaint to complianant.  

2.     In this case even though the notice sent by the complainant was served

upon the opposite party,  on 09.06.2014 he did not appear before this forum

and there is no representation for the Opposite Party.Therefore the Opposite Party was called absent and set Exparte.  Proof affidavit of complainant filed

along with documents which were marked as ExA1 to ExA8.

3.  Now the points for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4.       Point No.1)   On perusal of arguments advanced on the side of complainant, the contents of the complaint, the evidence and the documents filed on the side of complainant it is very clear that the complainant purchased a Water purifier  on 19.10.2011 for Rs.12,500/- under Ex.A3.   After installation of the  said Aqua Star Ro system developed some problem and he sent an Ex.A2,  e.mail dt.19.10.2011  to the opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party’s technicians rectified the defects the above said machine.   Thereafter the complainant found that the original spares of the water purifier were missing and complained of the same to the opposite party.  Again the complainant sent a letter Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 dt. 21.6.2012 & 23.6.2012 to the opposite party to rectify the above said machine  but  the problem was not rectified to the opposite party   Therefore the opposite party committed deficiency in service.  

5.       Considering the facts and circumstances stated above it is clearly established the fact that there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence the forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in the complaint. Other than in 2 of 4 in the prayer column  accordingly the complaint is allowed with costs. 

6.       Point No.2:-   In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to take back the defective water purifier or to repay the sum of Rs.16,500/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand and five hundred only) towards the cost of price and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  towards compensation for the mental agony and Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards the cost of proceedings to the complainant.

The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% P.a. till the date of payment.

          Dictated directly by the President to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of December  2014.

 

Sd/*******                                             Sd/*******                                         Sd/*******

MEMBER-I                                 MEMBER-II                        PRESIDENT

List of Complainant Documents:

EXA1 –        X -Copy  of  Cash Bill issued by Opposite Party for sum of

                   Rs.17,701/-  to the complainant dated: 02.05.2012.

EXA2  -        X- Copy of Legal Notice issued by  the counsel for complainant

          to the opposite party dated :08.04.2013.

EXA3 –        X-Copy of  Bill of Estimate  issued by the opposite party for sum

          of Rs.940/- to the complainant dated: 06.12.2012

 

Opposite parties document – Nil (set-exparte)

 

Sd/*******                                             Sd/*******                                         Sd/*******

MEMBER-I                                 MEMBER-II                           PRESIDENT