BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.204/2018

DATED ON THIS THE 5^th March, 2020

      Present:   1) Sri. C.V.Maragoor

B.Com., L.L.M., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.           

                                        B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.       This complaint has filed by B.R.Vijayakumara S/o late D.Rajagopala resident of Mysuru to direct the opposite party M/s Iyon Exchange Ltd., Home Water Solution, Mumbai and its branch office at Mysuru to install new softener or otherwise pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
2.        The complainant on seeing the advertisement made by opposite party at Vijayanagar 4^th Stage, Mysuru came to know that the softener of opposite party is providing purified water and impressed by the said instrument has purchased softener NJS 3A model on 08.04.2017 from the opposite party by paying Rs.30,500/-.  The said softener has installed in the first floor of complainant’s house.  The softener was not working properly since from the date of purchase.  On repeated complaint made by the complainant to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 mechanic of the opposite party after checking changed the softener head.  Even after changing the softener head the inter walls were not functioning.  The opposite party has demanded Rs.5,000/- for change of the walls.  After service of legal notice dated 18.04.2018 sent by the complainant, the opposite party has installed distributor on 26.05.2018. Even after fixing new distributor purifying water process has been stopped.  Hence, this complaint.
3.       The opposite party No.2 after the service of notice appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainant has purchased softener from main branch.  The opposite party admitted that the water filter works in three stages, in first stage water goes inside from water filter after regeneration process takes 50 to 55 minutes to complete the process. The opposite party No.2 has denied rest of the allegations.  However, admitted that the opposite party No.2 expert had replaced multiport walls.  The opposite party No.2 further admitted that on 26.05.2018 it has replaced distributor.  The warranty period has expired as such the opposite party No.2 is not liable to replace the item or give compensation to the complainant.
4.        The opposite party No.1 despite the service of notice was remained exparte. 
5.        The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced some documents in support of his case.  On behalf of opposite party No.2 affidavit evidence is not filed.
6.        We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant where as opposite party and their counsel was remained absent after filing affidavit evidence by complainant and the points that would arise for determination are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that the softener sold by the opposite party is of inferior quality and that amounts to deficiency in service?
2.  Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

7.             Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- In the affirmative;

      Point No.2 :- In the affirmative as per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point Nos.1 and 2:- The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the opposite party has supplied defective softener though it received price of Rs.30,500/-.  Since beginning the softener was not functioning properly.
9.         The complainant in the affidavit evidence has reiterated the averments of complaint.  The opposite party has not disputed purchase of softener from main branch by paying Rs.30,500/- on 08.04.2017.  The opposite party in the written version has admitted replacement of parts of softener since the date of its sale.  The opposite party admitted the averments of complaint that it has replaced head of the softener, thereafter inner walls which were not functioning and lastly on 26.05.2018 replacement of distributor.  This complaint has been filed on 11.06.2018. It shows that within 17 days from the date of replacement of distributor the complaint has been filed since the softener was not functioning.  The admission given by the opposite party with regard to replacement of softener parts on and often within one year from the date of purchase establishes that the softener sold by the opposite party is defective. Therefore, the opposite party shall replace and provide new softener to the complainant without charging any amount with fresh warranty.  Otherwise, pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant which includes cost of the softener and litigation expenses.      Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by B.R.Vijayakumar is allowed directing the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to replace the softener and install new softener in the house of complainant with fresh warranty within 30 days from the date of order. Otherwise, they shall pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day till compliance.
2. Alternatively, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant which is the cost of softener and litigation expenses with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till payment.  
3. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the 5^th March, 2020)