Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/421/2018

M/S CHONA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EUREKA FORBES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

K.RAMANAMOORTHY & OTHERS

04 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  18.09.2012

                                                               Order pronounced on:  04.02.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 04^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.421/2018

 

M/s. Chona Financial Services Limited,

Represented by its Director,

Mr.V.Palaniappan,

At New No.46, Prakasam Street,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.M/s.Eureka Forbes Limited,

Direct Sales Office,

No.31/14, First Floor,

Burkit Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

 

2.M/s.Eureka Forbes Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Registered Office at No.7, Chakrabaria Road, (South)

Kolkata – 700 025.

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                         : M/s.K.Ramanamoorthy, S.Ramesh,

                                                                      M.Vidhya Sagar

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                      : M/s.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi,

K.Aravintha Bharathi, J.Ranjini Devi, A.B.Rubavathy & S.R.B.Ramadevi

                                                                       Indus Associates Advocates

                                                                  

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had purchased one Aqua Guard Total Enhance RO WF System for a sum of Rs.11,990/- by Invoice No.7911103079 dated 26.09.2011 (Customer ID:1008806093)  from the  1^st opposite party. The above said RO system was purchased as to ensure pure water supply for drinking and cooking purposes. The 1^st opposite party’s representative did not test the water that was supplied to the RO system at any point of time before installation or even until now. Those consuming the RO water were falling sick often after installation of the RO system.  The complainant decided to test the water that came out from the RO system after filtration. They had tested the water at King  Institute, Guindy, Chennai without revealing that this was treated water and instead stating that this was bore well water. The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive the report from King Institute dated 19.01.2012 which clearly states that “The given water is unfit for drinking”. The complainant had sent letter dated 21.02.2012 to the opposite parties about the facts and relief sought and they had received the same. The act of the opposite parties not installing the proper materials and sale of the inferior quality  of the RO System to the complainant is a clear act of deficiency in service. The complainant issued legal notice dated 26.03.2012  to the opposite parties who had received the same. But they neither replied no paid the refund. Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties are not manufacturer of the product. The opposite parties are only a marketer and service provider to the customers.  The manufacturer of this product is not included as a party to this complaint. This complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties and the complainant is not a Consumer since the purchased  product is for commercial purpose. The Aqua Guard Total Enhance RO System- model is superior compared to any other models, which is meant for bore well/Ground Water. After few months of purchase, the complainant has informed about the smell in the output water. If some contaminated water/heavy dosage of chlorine is mixed  in the metro water or mixing of sewage water, there may be difference in the smell and taste of output water. The complaint was recorded and service persons attended the complainant’s grievance. The opposite party also advised him to use the Ground Water only. If the complainant desires to use Metro Water, he has to change Filter Membrane of a different standard. Inspite of advice of the opposite party, without testing the water and Filter Membrane, the complainant used this model water purifier for the Metro Water. It is a matter of fact, the metro water supply has various sources of supplying water and therefore the TDS level would be varying depending on the supply. The opposite parties do not test water, unless collected by their representative in sterile bottles. The opposite parties changed the membrane and told the complainant that the membrane cannot be replaced at free of cost for the second time. The opposite parties deny the allegation of deficiency in service and the complaint may be dismissed.

 

 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. whether the complainant  is  a consumer?

          2. Whether the complaint is maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of    

              Parties?

 

          3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          4. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant  had purchased Aqua Guard total Enhance RO WF System for a sum of  Rs.11,990/- by Invoice No.7911103079 dated 26.09.2011 and the Customer I.D. is 1008806093 from the 1^st opposite party  under Ex.A1 invoice. At the time of installation opposite parties had not tested its purity. Since some of them had fallen sick after consuming water from the above said R.O system, complainant  had chosen to test the water at King Institute, Guindy,Chennai and the report dated 19.01.2012 is Ex.A2. Result in Ex.A2 indicates that it is in acidic nature with PH value of 6.0 which is not within the permissible limit between PH value of 6.5 and 8.5 as prescribed by BIS for a drinking water. Hence the complainant  stopped drinking the water.  Again on 30.01.2012,water check facility of Eureka Forbes Ltd, had done the test after  the receipt of complaint  from the complainant over phone and the analysis report is Ex.A3  where the PH value was found within the desirable limit after purification.  Letter sent by the complainant to opposite parties  is in Ex.A4 and  acknowledgement cards are in Ex.A5. Ex.A6 is the reply of the 1^st opposite party  with enclosures. Ex.A7 is legal notice  given by the complainant  to opposite parties  and its acknowledgement  is noticed through Ex.A8 to Ex.A10.

05. Ex.B1  is the installation report by the 1^st opposite party  and Ex.B2 is the letter issued by the 1^st opposite party  dated 05.03.2012.  Complainant  alleges that the 1^st opposite party  through the 2^nd opposite party  supplied  poor and inferior quality of  RO system which has caused great hardship and mental agony to the complainant  whereas the opposite parties  contend that the complainant is not a consumer since the nature of usage is commercial in nature  and the manufacturer is not added as a party and also contends that  all the allegations of the complainant   are invented stories and water purifier membrane may be choked by the usage of the customer and hence the iron contents in the water was high and the hardness of the water was still existing.  Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

           06. Sec.2 (d) reads as follows:

          “Consumer” means any person who-

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose: or

 

2. ‘(hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘(hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose):

Opposite parties  would contend that  the complainant  had purchased the product  for commercial purpose  and  not for own purpose. It is purchased in the name of a company i.e. M/s Chona Financial Services Ltd., and the water purifier is used for its employees.  The complainant  was using the system for pure water supply for the purpose of drinking. It may even be utilized at his office for the main purpose of drinking, but the purpose is  only for drinking not for sale or resale  of the product to someone else and the purchase bill stands in the name of the company does not mean that it is of commercial in nature. Therefore the forum concludes that the complainant  is  a consumer  and point No.1 is answered accordingly.

07. POINT NO.2:

          The allegation of the complainant is only against the opposite parties for  deficiency in service  and not the manufacturing defect.  Hence the plea raised by the opposite parties  are not correct. Point no.2. is answered accordingly.

08. POINT NO.3:

          The unit was installed on 27.09.2011 as per the installation report in Ex.B1. opposite parties  have stated in their written version that Aqua guard  total enhance RO system  which is sold to the complainant  is the superior  system when compared to any other models which is meant for bore well/Ground water  but no test report with the water tested at the time of installation point is not submitted by the  opposite parties. After four months later, after some of them had fallen sick the complainant decided to test the water from the fixed RO equipment and  the test report is  in Ex.A2 which also reveals that the sample  water after testing shows as acidic in nature and unfit for drinking. Based on the report Ex.A4 letter was issued to opposite parties and it was received  by opposite parties  and the acknowledgement  is Ex.A5. Reply in Ex.A6 reveals that the metro water supply has various sources of supplying water and the TDS level would be varying depending on the supply of the day. Hence the TDS level reflected low in the certificate dated 03.02.2012. Based on this fact opposite parties were ready to install a low TDS/NF membrane. However there is no document filed to prove the opposite parties water purity test done at the time of installation  and in the presence of the complainant and opposite parties have not cared to test the treated water after installation also to ensure its performance which clearly proves opposite parties deficiency in service. Because of  all these and as per the report in Ex.A2 the complainant would have  suffered illness  with mental agony. The warranty period noted in the service card exists till 26.09.2012 and the complaint was reported within its warranty period. The defect had not been rectified even after the complaint.  All these amounts to deficiency in service by the opposite parties. Accordingly point No.3 is answered.

09. POINT NO.4:

          As per the decision arrived in the above said points it is concluded that the complainant suffered illness due to deficiency in service is accepted as true.  Both have tested water on their own.  No receipt for payment is filed for the claim of the complainant.  Hence it is not considered. Therefore, opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.11,990/-  with interest being the cost of the product  and to pay Rs. 15,000/- for deficiency in service and  mental agony besides a sum  of Rs.5,000/- for cost.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties jointly or severally  are  ordered to refund a sum of Rs.11,990/- (Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred and ninety only) towards the cost of the product to the complainant with 6% interest from 18.09.2012 till date of payment and simultaneously the complainant also should handover the purchased Aqua Guard which is in his possession to the opposite parties and further the opposite parties also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 /-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for costs. The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 04^th day of February 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.01.2011                   Tax Invoice

 

Ex.A2 dated 19.01.2012                   King Institute Test Report

 

Ex.A3 dated 30.01.2012                   Aquachek Test Report

 

Ex.A4 dated 21.02.2012                   Letter sent by complainant

 

Ex.A5 dated 29.02.2012                   Acknowledgement Cards

 

Ex.A6 dated 05.03.2012                   Reply of the 1^st opposite party with enclosures

 

Ex.A7 dated 26.03.2012                   Legal Notice

 

Ex.A8 dated 29.03.2012                   Acknowledgement card

 

Ex.A9 dated 02.05.2012                   Complaint to Post Office

 

Ex.A10 dated 04.05.2012                 Reply from post office

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated 27.09.2011                   Installation Report issued by the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.B2 dated 05.03.2012                   Letter issued by the 1^st opposite party

 

                                               

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT