O R D E R <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> <br /> The brief facts of the compliant filed by the complainant against the Ops are that OP 1 is the dealer o`f Zero-B water Purifier and 2nd OP is the branch of Op 3 who is the Head Office of Zero-B water Purifier. That he purchased water purifier on 30-09-2008 for a sum of Rs.28,000/- from the 1st OP and at that time he was informed that the unit is in good condition having 25LPH RO uses reverse Osmosis technology proved to be effective and give 25 litre pure water per hour. But the Ops have totally failed to keep up their promise regarding its functioning and he is not able to get even 5 litres of water. That the unit is not properly working despite sufficient water and electric supply. That Problem started in the unit within one month from the date of purchase and despite complaining, the Ops to rectify they did not do and issued notice on 09-06-2009 and legal notice on 17-07-2009 and thereby attributing deficiency in the service of Ops has prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and another sum of Rs.28,000/- with interest and cost. <br /> <br /> Ops 1 to 3 have appeared through their advocate and filed version. The 1st OP who was earlier placed ex-parte came with an application for setting aside ex-parte order by imposing cost. Cost was not paid. When cost was insisted counsel for him submitted that he cannot pay the cost and he was even permitted to file version by imposing further cost even at that stage he did not inclined to pay cost as such by an order objection of OP 1 is taken off. Hence OP 2 and 3 are the contesting Ops in this case. <br /> <br /> Ops 2 and 3 have filed their version admitting the transaction under which the complainant had purchased the water purifier for consideration but denied the allegation of the complainant that the unit is not functioning well. They have further stated when the complainant complained of some defect in the unit after installation their company men attended the unit on 28-01-2009 and found membrane was not working and it was replaced free of cost as a good will gesture. It is further stated by them as and when the complainant informed them the problem they have attended to the satisfaction of the complainant and have further elaborated that sediment cartridge, carbon block and purifying cartridges and membrane are not covered by warranty. Therefore they cannot be replaced by them free of cost and in the event of such replacement the complainant has to pay cost and denying that there is deficiency at their end in giving service to the complainant have stated that the complainant insisting upon to replace the consumable articles free of cost which cannot be done and they by referring to the conditions of warranty have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Kumar for Ops 2 and 3 have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective compliant and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of the brochure of Zero B water purifier, a copy of the invoice, copy of the warranty card with copy of legal notice he got issued to the Ops. Ops 2 and 3 have produced copies of job cards dated 03-10-2008 and 28-01-2009 with a copy of warranty card. Counsel for the complainant has filed his written arguments. We have heard the counsel for Ops 2 and 3 and perused the written arguments and the materials placed before us. <br /> <br /> On considerations of the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that Ops 2 and 3 have caused deficiency in their service in not attending to the defects in the water purifier supplied to him? <br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 in the negative.<br /> Point No: 2:see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS: POINT No:1:: <br /> <br /> As could be gathered from the contentions of the contesting parties there is no dispute in this complainant having had purchased a water purifier for consideration and its installation in the house of the complainant. The complainant complains that within one month from the date of purchase the water purifier developed defects and he was not even able to get 5 litres of purified water as against 25 litres promised. It is his further allegation that despite informing the Ops on several occasions and issue of legal notice he did not respond and therefore attributing deficiency has sought for awarding of compensation as prayed. <br /> <br /> As against this allegations of the complainant Ops 2 and 3 have filed their affidavit evidence denying any defects un-attended by them and even sworn to in the affidavit by producing copies of daily service report and have stated that their men on 03-10-2008 and 28-01-2009 attended the complaint of the complainant and thereafter no specific compliant about the defect in the unit was brought to their notice. Ops further in the affidavit evidence have stated that their men on 28-01-2009 on examining the unit found that membrane was to be replaced and even replaced it fee of cost though that item is perishable and not covered under the warranty. They have further elaborated that other consumable articles like Sediment cartridge, carbon block and purifying cartridges are also not covered under warranty. The copy of the warranty conditions produced before us reads::<br /> <br /> “ That Consumable components, such as sediment cartridge, carbon block, RO/UF membranes and purifying cartridge are not covered by this warranty”<br /> <br /> <br /> And it is further stated by Ops 2 and 3 that the complainant insisted upon replacing these consumables free of cost but they did not agree and thereby reaffirm that they have not caused any deficiency in their service. <br /> <br /> The complainant neither in is compliant nor in his affidavit evidence filed disclosed these facts and the men of OP 2 and 3 attending to the repairs and replacement of membrane free of cost. The allegations of mal-functioning or non-functioning of the water purifier found to be general and not specific. Further the complainant found to had not approached OP 2 and 3 with any specific defect for rectifying it and we also find that after the service done by OP 2 and 3 on 28-01-2009 the complainant did not go for service and get the purifier serviced by paying the cost of the consumables which were required to be replaced and if the Ops 2 and 3 had refused to attend or carry out the service as expected off and if proved by the complainant that would have been a ground to brand the Ops as deficient. The complainant even before this forum during pendency of complaint has not made any attempt to get it checked through OP 2 and 3 with the intervention of this forum or through an independent service provider to point out the defect in the purifier. We on careful analysis on the materials placed before us find that the complainant has not proved deficiency of Ops 2 and 3 and therefore the compliant is devoid of merits and we by answering point NO:1 in the negative pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. <br />