IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 10^th day of February 2022

Filed on: 16.04.2019

PRESENT:

Shri.D.B.Binu President

Shri.V.Ramachandran Member

Smt.Sreevidhia T.N. Member

C.C.No.168/2019

Complainants :

1) Mr. Joseph Shreyas, Srambickal House, Chandrathil Road

Edappally, Cochin – 682 024

2) Mr. S.T.Thomas, Srambickal House, Chandrathil Road

Edappally, Cochin – 682 024

Vs.

Opposite parties :

1) M/S. Eureka Forbes Limited, Building No. HIG 6, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi, Kerala – 682 036

(Ex-parte)

2) M/S. Eureka Forbes, B1/B2, 701, 7th Floor, Marathon NextGen,

Off Ganpathrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

O R D E R

D.B.Binu, President

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainants purchased a water purifier, Dr.Aquaguard Magna HD RO + UV (MXT) ORIGA, for an amount of Rs. 19,990/- from the 1st opposite party on 28/04/2018. The said water purifier carried a warranty of 1 year, from the date of purchase. On 04/12/2018, the machine stopped dispensing water and a complaint was registered with register No. 21010391044, by the complainants before the opposite parties by calling in their toll-free number. After two days of registering the complaint, technicians from the opposite parties visited the complainant’s residence, inspected the machine, and informed that filters have exhausted their life span and needed to be replaced. When the complainants raised their concerns, the technician after consulting the opposite parties, replaced the filters of the machine. Even after the replacement of all filters, the machine refused to dispense water and the technician tried to repair the machine by removing and refitting several machine parts. Since he could not resolve the problem, he left the machine and returned after a day with certain other spare parts and made the machine functional. But even after getting the machine repaired, it again developed problems to an extent that one day the kitchen store of the complainants was flooded with water from the water purifier. The complaint registered by the complainants was addressed by the opposite parties by getting the machine repaired to normal working condition. Even after that, the complainant lodged complaints with register nos. 2010679727, 2010772243 & 2011391362, for getting the water purifier getting repaired. Each time technicians from opposite parties addressed the complaint by removing and reinstalling various parts of the water purifier. Finally, the machine stopped working completely with no power indication and the issue reported to the opposite party by the complainant is not resolved till date. According to the complainants, they were fully depending on this water purifier and the recurring complaints constrained them to depend on a well for drinking water which they found difficult. Even though the complainants have purchased a brand-new machine from the first opposite party the recurring complaints show that the machine has manufacturing defects that have not been cured by the opposite parties which have sustained mental agonies to the complainants and hence this complaint.

2. Notices were served to the opposite parties 1 & 2 on 22.04.2019 Pertinently, the opposite parties 1 & 2 chose not to appear before this Commission and were proceeded exparte. The opposite party was also communicated with an email by this Commission.

3. Evidences in this case consists of documentary evidences produced by the complainant which are marked as Exbt.A1 to A8. No oral evidence from the side of complainant. Being ex-parte no evidence furnished by the opposite parties.

4. Considering the allegations of the complainant, the Commission has raised the following issues: -

(i) Whether the complainants are entitled to get a brand-new water purifier to replace the defective water purifier?

(ii)) Whether the complainants are entitled to get a refund of the price of the water purifier with 18% interest P.A?

(iii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get any amount towards damages for causing hardships and mental agony?

(iv) Order as to costs?

Heard the complainants in person.

(5) Issue Nos.(i) and (ii)

We perused relevant documents on record. Document No. 01 shows that the 1^st complainant has purchased a water purifier, Dr.Aquaguard Magna HD RO + UV (MXT) ORIGA, for an amount of Rs. 19,990/- from the 1^st opposite party on 28/04/2018. Immediately after a few months of purchase of the water purifier, the machine started malfunctioning and the opposite parties were not able to rectify the defects even after getting the machine repaired several times. When the machine stopped working completely with no power indication, the opposite parties failed to address the issue even after receiving continuous communications from the complainants. Document Nos 2 to 7 shows various communications exchanged between the complainant and the opposite parties for getting the water purifier repaired. It is visible and clear from the said communications that the opposite parties have apologized for the inconvenience caused to the complainants about the concerns raised by the 1st complainant. It is not clear from documents 2 to 7, regarding any request for return of the price of the water purifier or replacement of the same. However, this commission is of the opinion that since the opposite parties have not turned up with their contentions and have admitted the complaints registered by the complainants through their communication (Document Nos. 4 & 5), we hold that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The warranty period commences from the date of purchase by the first end-user, for 12 months from the date of installation or 15 months from the date of sale, whichever is earlier. The first condition of notifying the opposite party about any defects has been complied with by the complainant within the specified period itself. After undergoing consecutive services, no action has been seen taken from the side of the opposite party regarding the complaint registered against the non-functioning of the water purifier. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to order that, the complainant is entitled to get a brand-new water purifier from the 1^st opposite party or the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties should refund the cost of the water purifier machine, a sum of Rs. 19,990/- to the complainant and simultaneously the complainant also should return the product to the 1^st opposite party. No order as to the cost of interest. On going through the documents provided by the complainant, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence issue Nos. (i) and (ii) are found in favour of the complainant.

(6) Issue No (iii) and (iv)

Since the product incurred several repairs from 04/12/2018 onwards, ie, immediately after the purchase of the product, and has been manhandled many times, we are of the opinion that, the complainant had spent his valuable time and money to contest his case, which calls for compensation and cost of the proceedings.

(7) In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

(1) The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall either jointly refund an amount of Rs.19,900/- towards the value of the water purifier as per Exbt. A1 Tax invoice to the complainants or to replace the defective water purifier with a brand-new water purifier to the complainants and simultaneously, the complainant should return the defective product to the 1^st opposite party.

(2) The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to wards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainants.

(3) The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainants.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above said amounts will carry 9% interest p.a. from the 31^st day of receipt of this order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in open Commission on this the 10^th day of February 2022.

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Exbts :

Exbt.A1 :: Copy of Tax Invoice issued by Eureka Forbes Limited the complainant dated 28.04.2018

Exbt.A2 :: Copy of gmail communication sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 03.01.2019

Exbt.A3 :: Copy of gmail communication sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated 24.09.2019

Exbt.A4 :: Copy of gmail communication between the complainant and the opposite party

Exbt.A5 :: Copy of gmail communication between the complainant and the opposite party

Exbt.A6 :: Copy of gmail communication between the complainant and the opposite party

Exbt.A7 :: Copy of gmail communication between the complainant and the opposite party

Exbt.A8 :: Copy of Warranty terms and conditions

Opposite parities Exbts - Nil

Date of Despatch ::

By Hand ::

By post ::

C.C.No.168/2019

order dated 28/12/2021