Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/63/2015

Suman Setia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Bali

06 May 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	63 of 2015
Date of Institution	12.03.2015
Date of Decision	06.05.2015

 

Dr.Suman Setia son of Sh.Jatinder Nath Setia resident of House No.237, Sector 2, Panchkula.

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus

1. M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., through its Branch Manager, SCO No.14, 1^st and 2^nd Floors, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

2.     M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., through its Service     Manager, H.No.270, Sector 18, Panchkula.

3.     M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., through its Managing Director, 252-A, Sant Nagar, above Reliance Fresh, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.

                                …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Vishal Bali, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Manoj Kumar Dogra, Service Supervisor and representative of the respondents.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant), which reads as under :-

“9.     For the reasons recorded, finding the complaint to be devoid to any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the Opposite Parties are bound to carry out the necessary repairs, if any,  in the said water purifier as per the terms and conditions of the service contract, Annexure C-4.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one water purifier, Model Aquaguard Total Enhance Green R.O. from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.13,490/- vide Invoice/bill dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure C-1). It was stated that the said water purifier, just after few months of its purchase, started giving problem and, as such, the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1, who advised him to contact Opposite Party No.2 (Authorized Service Centre).  It was further stated that the complainant got his complaint noted with Opposite Party No.2 and on 02.03.2014, one employee/engineer namely Mr.Mukesh visited the residence of the complainant and checked the water purifier and on checking, he found that there were cockroaches in the tank of the water purifier. This fact was noted down by Mr.Mukesh on the service request activity report and he told the complainant that the there was some manufacturing defect in the water purifier, due to which, the cockroaches entered into the purifier from the top. The complainant was told that he would have to put extra cover on the top of the water purifier but since the cover was not available with him on that day, he stated that he would come back with the same after 2-3 days. Copy of the service request activity report is Annexure C-2. It was further stated that on 07.03.2014, Mr.Mukesh again came to the house of the complainant and put that extra cover on the top of the water purifier and receipt was again issued to him. Copy of the service request activity report is Annexure C-3.  On 04.05.2014, the complainant saw cockroaches in the tank of the said water purifier and on giving complaint to the Opposite Parties, one Mr.Tirlok visited his house and again this fact was mentioned in the service request activity report (Annexure C-4) and a sum of Rs.4,230/- was charged from him for renewing the service contract, which otherwise he was not entitled to charge, since the same was not in a proper working condition and was suffering from the manufacturing defect since the date of its purchase.  It was further stated that due to defective water purifier supplied by the Opposite Parties, the water which the complainant and his family had been consuming, was a contaminated one and which was bad for health. It was further stated that the complainant regularly asked Opposite Party No.1 to do something with regard to the defective water purifier, but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure C-5) upon the Opposite Parties through Regd. Post and requested them to refund the price of the water purifier alongwith other charges but they failed to do so and did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant.   It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.
3. In their written statement, the Opposite Parties, stated that the complainant deliberately played mischief with the water purifier, in question, and in the process, the lid/cover of the same was damaged, which caused the insects and cockroach to enter the machine. It was further stated that the allegations of cockroach etc. were afterthought,  as the complainant never complained in writing, as required under the terms of warranty before 30.05.2014, when the warranty period of the machine had already expired.  It was further stated that the complainant took an annual maintenance contract from the Opposite Parties, though he refused to make the AMC charges. It was further stated that the complainant had forcibly snatched the DAR from the technician and fabricated false entries dated 02.03.2014 to suit his requirement of filing a bogus claim in the Forum. It was further stated that first call for free mandatory service during warranty was received from the complainant on 02.03.2014. It was further stated that the write up i.e. “tank main cockroach hai” and signature of the Service Technician of the Company was taken under coercion by the complainant on the Service Request Activity Report (Annexure C-2).   It was further stated that the Service Technician of the Company checked the water purifier and found that the same was in a damaged condition and the damaged lid/cover of the same was changed on 07.03.2014, after great persuasion, as he was not allowed to complete the required job of putting a new cover. It was further stated that on 04.05.2014, the Service Technician of the Opposite Parties visited the complainant alongwith ICCR Original Copy (invoice cum-receipt) but he snatched the same from the Service Technician and even did not pay AMC charges of Rs.4230/-.  It was further stated that the complainant did not disclose any manufacturing defect, as the water purifier worked for 11 months till March, 2014 without any problem and no such test report from any laboratory was annexed with the complaint to prove any of the allegations.   It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
4.         The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement, filed by the Opposite Parties,                                                                   wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.   

5              The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, authorized agent of the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, Service Supervisor of the respondents/Opposite Parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.             The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum without going through the evidence on record, grossly fell into a grave error by holding that the complaint with regard to entering of cockroach in the water purifier was made only once i.e. for the first time on 02.03.2014, after 11 months of purchase of the same, which defect was promptly attended to and rectified by the Opposite Parties on 07.03.2014, whereas, the documentary evidence in the shape of job cards placed on record clearly show that the first complaint was made on 09.11.2013 (Annexure C-10), followed by complaints attended vide job cards dated 02.03.2014 (Annexure C-2), 07.03.2014 (Annexure C-3) and 04.05.2014 (Annexure C-11). He further submitted that on every job card it was explicitly mentioned by the technician that cockroaches were found in the water tank of the same. He further submitted that even on 07.03.2014 cover of the water tank was also replaced with a new one, but again as was evident from job card dated 04.05.2014 (Annexure C-11), it was found that cockroaches were still entering into the same. He further submitted that the District Forum grossly fell into a grave error by holding that there was no cogent evidence regarding manufacturing defect in the water purifier, except the problem of cockroaches entering in the same. He further submitted that the job cards placed on record clearly depict that Opposite Parties, could not rectify the defect of cockroaches entering into the water tank of purifier which meant that there was some manufacturing defect in the product. He further submitted that the defect of entering cockroaches in the water tank of the water purifier occurred during the warranty period and the complaints regarding the same were also made during the warranty period. He prayed for allowing the complaint and setting aside the impugned order.  

10.           The Service Supervisor of the respondents/Opposite Parties, submitted that the representative of the Opposite Parties wrote on the service request activity report that “tank main cockroach hai” and signature of the Service Technician was taken under coercion by the complainant on that report (Annexure C-2).  He further submitted that the Service Technician checked the water purifier and found that the same was in a damaged condition and the damaged lid/cover of the same was changed on 07.03.2014, but the complainant never got his house/site treated with pesticide, where the water purifier was installed, for removing the cockroaches and that was the reason the cockroaches again and again entered in the product. He further submitted that the Service Technician visited the house of the complainant on 04.05.2014 alongwith ICCR Original Copy (invoice cum-receipt) but he snatched the same and even did not pay AMC charges of Rs.4230/-.  He further submitted the there was no manufacturing defect in the water purifier because the complainant never filed any report from a laboratory to prove the same. 

11.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, Service Supervisor of the respondents/Opposite Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.           The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there was any manufacturing defect in the water purifier. The answer, to this, is in the affirmative.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased the water purifier from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice dated 11.04.2013 for a sum of Rs.13,500/- (Annexure C-1). Exhibit C-10 is a copy of the Service Request Activity Report dated 09.11.2013. From this document, it is proved that firstly, the water purifier of the complainant was checked by Mr.Mukesh, representative of the Opposite Parties on 09.11.2013, i.e. after about 7 months of its purchase and at that time, the product was certainly within the warranty period. It was clearly written by the representative of the Opposite Parties on the said report (Exhibit C-10) that there was presence of cockroaches in the water tank of the said product. Thereafter, the complainant lodged his complaint with Opposite Party No.2 and on 02.03.2014, when Mr.Mukesh, representative checked the water purifier, he again found presence of cockroaches in the tank of the water purifier as is evident from Service Request Activity Report (Annexure C-2). It is also proved from the Service Request Activity Report (Annexure C-3) that Mr.Mukesh again visited the house of the complainant on 07.03.2014 and changed the lid cover of the water purifier. As regards the allegation of the Opposite Parties that write up and signatures of the Service Technician upon Annexure C-2 were taken under coercion by the complainant and said activity report was snatched from the hands of the Service Technician, the Opposite Parties failed to file any affidavit of the Service Technician, to corroborate its version. This averment of respondents/Opposite Parties is apparently after thought to wriggle out from its liability. Had the Service Technician coerced upon by the complainant to put remarks regarding presence of cockroaches, Opposite Parties could immediately lodge its protest with the appellant/complainant. Annexure C-4 is a copy of the Invoice-cum-Receipt dated 04.05.2014. From this document, it is proved that the service contract of the water purifier was renewed for the period from 04.05.2014 to 03.05.2015, for which, they charged a sum of Rs.4230/-. The allegation of the Opposite Parties regarding non-payment of the AMC charges of Rs.4230/- and forcibly snatching the ICRR Original Copy (Invoice-cum-Receipt) from the Service Technician, by the complainant, has no force because they did not file any affidavit of the concerned Service Technician nor made any complaint or initiated any legal action against him, in this regard. From Service Request Activity Report dated 04.05.2014 (Exhibit C-11), it is proved that when Mr.Tirlok, official of the Opposite Parties came to renew the said contract, he even noticed presence of the cockroaches in the water tank of the purifier but he did not bother to rectify the same. Even the Counsel for the complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure C-5) to the Opposite Parties but they failed to send any reply.

13.           All the Service Request Activity Reports, Annexures C-2 & C-3, Exhibits C-10 & C-11 were, thus, signed voluntarily by the Service Technicians of the Opposite Parties, after verifying the fact of presence of cockroaches in the water tank of the said product. No doubt, the service technicians/officials of the Opposite Parties time and again visited the house of the complainant and even changed the lid of the water purifier but they failed to rectify the defect in the said purifier. When it was crystal clear from the Service Request Activity Reports that there was presence of the cockroaches in the water tank of the purifier there was no need of report from any laboratory for proving the manufacturing defect. After perusal of the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion that there is some crevice in the water purifier, from which, the cockroaches entered in the body of the machine. M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd. is a renowned Company and the people repose faith in its water purifiers, so, it was the bounden duty of the said Company to provide a defect free product. But in the instant case, the Opposite Parties installed the defective water purifier, on account of which, the complainant and his family members consumed contaminated water. Thus the very purpose of getting the water purifier installed was defeated. Thus, the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint and the order passed by it (District Forum) is liable to be set aside, and the complaint deserves to be partly allowed.  We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the appellant/complainant is certainly entitled to the refund of the water purifier, compensation and litigation expenses.

14.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by the appellant/complainant, is accepted with costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is partly accepted. The Opposite Parties (now respondents) are held jointly and severally liable and directed as under:-

i)              To refund the price of the water purifier i.e.   Rs.13,500/- to the complainant, within a      period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a                 copy of the order.  The complainant shall         return the water purifier to the   respondents/Opposite Parties on receipt of      price within a week.

ii)             To pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant (appellant) for the mental tension and harassment, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 

iii)            To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, to the complainant.

iv)            This order be complied with, by the Opposite Parties (now respondents) within the stipulated period of 30 days, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount, as mentioned in Clause (i) & (ii) above, to the appellant/complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of default, till its realization, besides costs of litigation.

15.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

06.05.2015                                                               Sd/-                                                                       (DEV RAJ)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER