ORDER

SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M.  MEMBER

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (herein referred to as OP) alleging deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.4,200/- (Four Thousand Two Hundred Only) along with interest 21% per annum  from 04/06/2020 till payment and further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/-  as damages for mental agony/harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses and for such other reliefs of this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the Complaint are that: the complainant purchased Aqua Guard Total Reviva WP system and has been using the same from OP. He had obtained annual maintenance contract by paying the requisite charges to Op. The op also undertook at the time of AMC that all the filters will be replaced with new one to ensure the good condition working of the Aqua guard, also agreed to provide free preventive service in a year and free break down service and replacement of consumables such as water filter, activated carbon and also free repair/replacement of worn-out or exhausted parts during the contract period. The said AMC was in-force till August 2020. 

3.     It is contended that on 04.06.2020 the said water purifier went out of order and stopped performing its work. he registered the complaint with a customer care immediately whereas, OP remained silent till 30.06.2020. An email was also sent on the said date, to get the water purifier repaired.  One Sri Nishanth CK inspected the water purifier and found that all the filters are completely blocked and the same to be replaced. He also promised that the same will be replaced free of cost since the AMC is still valid till August 2020. 

4.     On 16.06.2020 one Sri Raghavendra claimed to be the manager of OP over phone demanded the complainant to renew the AMC to get replaced with full set of filters and he was very harsh, rude and intolerable. Though he made complaint to the higher authorities, it did not yield any result. With no other alternate, he obtained the AMC afresh even prior to  its expiry by paying the AMC charges. On 05.09.2020 only OP replaced the filters and on 08.09.2020 replaced the pumps. He had to wait for all those days for water to drink. Fed up with the inhuman attitude of the Raghavendra the said to be the manager of the OP, he had to issue legal notice demanding to repair the water purifier and to make payment for availing water for all those days till the technician repaired the water purifier. He had to purchase water by paying Rs.75/- per can of drinking water.  This is due to Op not attending to rectify the water filter though the AMC was inforce.   For 49 days he has spent Rs.75/- per can of water per day and has incurred Rs.4,200/- in this connection.  Though he has raised the complaint on 04.06.2020 itself, OP did not attend the complaint, replaced the pump and the filters, which it ought to have done as the AMC was in force. Illegally Op demanded to purchase AMC though it was still in force.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op in attending the complaint, not replacing the filters and the pump though it was within the period of annual maintenance contract and hence prayed the commission to direct the Op to pay Rs.4,200/- being cost of drinking water purchased by him during the period to repair, for Rs.10,000/- as damages for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- towards legal expenses.  Hence this complaint.

5.     Upon the service of notice as per the postal track record OP did not appear before this Commission for the reasons best known to it and hence placed exparte.

6.     In order to prove the case, Complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved unfair trade practice as well as deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the Complaint?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

8.     On perusal of the affidavit evidence and documents produced by the Complainant, it becomes clear that the Complainant purchased a water purifier product of OP by name Aqua Guard Total Reviva WP System few years ago, and also obtained AMC.  In email correspondences, it is specifically mentioned that the AMC is valid till August 2020. When such being the case, as per the complaint averments and also as per Ex.P3 the complainant raised complaint  on 04.06.2020 which is much within the AMC period. It is the bounden duty of the Op to attend to the complaint as per the AMC contract and replace the consumables worn-out or exhausted part and to provide services.  It is the specific case of the complainant that the men of OP compelled him to obtain AMC even before the validity of the earlier AMC expired. Ex.P1 is the AMC for the period 15.08.2020 to 15.08.2021. This contract receipt has been generated on 23.07.2020 which clearly amplifies the say of the complainant that he was forced to take the AMC earlier even though the earlier AMC was still effective and inforce.  A sum of Rs.5,000/- has been paid to obtain the AMC as per Ex.P2. The series of correspondences and copy of the legal notice if taken into consideration and the admission made by the OP that there is some delay in duty to COVID-19 restrictions, if taken in to consideration, there is clear evidence of deficiency in service on the part of Op in not repairing the problems relating to the water purifier of OP, though OP men attended to the complaint. 

9.     Insisting the complainant to obtain AMC again though the earlier AMC was in force from 16.08.2019 to 15.08.2020 as per Ex. P15 and compelling the complainant to pay Rs.5,000/- for the same amounts to deficiency in service. OP ought to have repaired the said water purifier on the strength the earlier AMC only. Renewal of the AMC only arises after the earlier AMC expire or about to expire.  Insisting complainant by Op to obtain the AMC though the earlier was in force clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and insisting the complainant to obtain further AMC and informing him that only after obtaining or renewing the AMC for further period, they will take repair work also amount to unfair trade. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO 2:

10.   The complainant has sought payment of Rs.4,200/- along with interest at 21 % per annum for the water purchased from 04.06.2020 till the said water purifier repaired by OP by taking about 49 days for its repair. Only three receipts i.e. one for Rs.75/- another for Rs.350/- and another Receipt for Rs.150/- has been produced. He has not produced the other receipts for having purchased Bisleri water for drinking purpose. Inspite of it, complainant has spent money for purchase of the mineral drinking water in order to keep  healthy. Hence we find the demand of complainant regarding the amount to be paid in this regard is quite proper and reasonable.  The act of OP in not attending the complaint immediately and at the earliest and further delaying its repair and demanding for further AMC put the complainant under mental stress and physical strain for which we direct the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages and a further sum of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.  Hence, we answer POINT NO 2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:-

ORDER

1.  The Complaint hereby allowed in part with cost.
2. OP i.e M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd, represented by its Managing Director and CEO is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,200/- to the Complainant along with interest of 12% per annum from 04/06/2020 till the payment of the entire amount.
3. The OP are further directed to pay a sum of 5,000/- towards damages and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. The OP are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report and  this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be destroyed as per the C.P. Act and Rules thereon.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 12^th of JANUARY 2021)

 MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Original contract receipt

Ex P2: Statement of account

Ex. P3: Communication correspondence dated 13.06.2020

Ex P4: Email communication.

Ex P5: Screen shot taken from the OP having registered complainant

Ex P6, P7 and P8: Screen shot taken from the OP having registered complainant dated 13.07.2020, 26.07.2020 and 05.09.2020.

Ex P9: Copy of the legal notice dated 08.09.2020.

Ex P10 & P11: RPAD receipt and postal acknowledgment

Ex P12, P13, P14: Copies of Invoices (3 NOs.)

Ex P15: Copy of device details.

Ex P16: Copy of S B account statements

Ex P17: Copy of view transaction details

Ex P18: Copy of transaction details issued by Bank of Baroda

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: - Nil-

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

-Nil-

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

RAK*