BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1.  UGCE Insurance Institute for Education & Training, SCO No.62-63 Top Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

2.  T.R. Jain s/o Sh. Himmat Mal Jain r/o H.No.244, Sector 20A, Chandigarh.

….…Complainants

                           V E R S U S

1.      M/s Kent Appliances, Plot No.3 & 4 Ram Nagar Industrial Area, Roorkee, District Haridwar Uttrakhand 247667.

Alternate Address :

Kent R-O System, C-15, Sector 7, Noida-200301 (U.P) through Sh. Mahesh Gupta, Managing Director.

2.      M/s Kent R-O System, Plot No.26/7, Phase-2, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through Regional Manager, Sh. Vishnu Sharma.

3.      M/s Pawan Electricals, SCO No.34, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh through Sh. Ram Lal Sethia, Proprietor.

4.      M/s Better Deal, SCO No25, 1^st Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh through Sh. Ajay Gupta.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Yogesh Jain, Adv. for complainants.

Sh. Sunil Narang, Adv. for OPs 1 & 2.

OPs 3 & 4 exparte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainants purchased  a Kent Grand Mineral RO machine KA-070502236 from OP-3 on 31.8.2007 and paid Rs.13,250/- and the same was installed at the residence of complainant No.2.  However, the machine developed some defect after five days as water was overflowing and the matter was brought to the notice of OPs 3 & 4.  He made numerous calls but the defect could not be removed and even the calls used to be attended after 15-20 days. As the OPs failed to remove the defect, the complainant purchased another water purifier of ‘Aqua Guard’ after spending a sum of Rs.13,500/-.  He served a legal notice dated 29.8.2008 in response to which he received a phone call  from the Private Secretary to the Managing Director of OP-1 that the machine would be replaced within 15 days but nothing was done. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OPs 1 & 2 submitted that the complainant purchased the machine on 31.8.2007 and the warranty ceased on 30.8.2008. During the period of warranty the complainant lodged three complaints i.e. 15.5.2008, 5.8.2008 and 23.8.2008 which were attended to the satisfaction of the complainants.  It has been denied that the machine was having any manufacturing defect as the problem of overflowing required minor adjustment or replacement of the wall but the complainant abruptly denied for any repair or even replacement of machine and sought damages of Rs.one lakh.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainants and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In its separate written reply OP-3 admitted the sale of the machine.  It has been pleaded that the answering OP was only assigned with the responsibility of sale and the after sale responsibility was that of OPs 1, 2 & 4.  It has been pleaded that the complaints made by the complainant were forwarded to OP-4 many times and reminders were also issued. The receipt of legal notice has been admitted.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part, this OP also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

After filing reply none appeared on behalf of OP-3 hence it was proceeded against exparte.

4.             None appeared on behalf of OP-4 despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

5.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.             We have heard the parties and have also perused the record. 

7.            The contention of the complainant is that the water purifier started giving trouble within 5 days of its installation regarding which a complaint was made to OP-3 and OP-4.  OP-3 filed the written reply in para 5 of which this fact was not denied.  OP-4 did not come forward to deny this allegation. As regards OP-1 and  OP-2 they have also not denied the allegation but it was mentioned in para 5 that “it is quite surprising that the complainant preferred to retain and use the machine and took long one year to claim for  refund of the price of the machine”.  It was further mentioned by OP 1 and OP-2 that “it is not understood that why the machine was not returned on the 6th day of the purchase”.  In this manner the fact that a defect was reported to OP-3 and OP-4 on the 5th day of installation of the machine has not been specifically denied even by OP-1 and OP-2.  According to the complainant the defect was regarding overflowing of water and leakage, which could not be plugged by the service man deputed by OP-3 and OP-4. The complainant claims to have made numerous complaints in this respect but the said defect was not rectified by any of the OPs.  OP-3 in para 5 of the reply has admitted that “the complaints made by the complainant were forwarded to OP-4 many times and reminder was also issued to OP-4, whenever the complainant approached them personally as well as through telephone”. It is mentioned in para 6 of the complaint which was not disputed by OP-3 nor even by OP-1 and OP-2, who have admitted that three complaints were made on 15.05.08, 5.08.09 and 23.08.08, as mentioned in preliminary objection in para 3 of the reply.  The complaint dated 5.05.08 is annexure A-3, in which it was mentioned that “overflow problem was persisting since installation and it was the forth time that the float valve was changed”.  Even inspite of that, the over flow was not plugged and the complainant again made the complaint dated 5.08.08 regarding the over flow of water and thereafter on 23.08.08 vide annexure A-5 the report itself says that “this is the 5th time that the float switch was changed, that it works hardly for 5 days and there was manufacturing defect and the machine should be replaced in next 3 days” failing which the complainant informed OPs that he would “abandon the machine at their risk and cost”.  According to him it is the 50th complaint made by the complainant.  Even now, till date the said defect has not been removed by the OPs, which amounts to grave deficiency in service whereby they charged the price of trouble free machine but installed a machine which was giving constant troubles to the complainant.

8.            The water purifier is put to use atleast thrice daily.  If it does not work properly, not only that the purpose for which the machine is installed is defeated but it also gives mental harassment to the owner of the machine.  The overflow causes physical harassment also. In such like cases, what is necessary for the OPs was to rectify the defect immediately but they did not do so for over a year and took it lightly.  It appears the OPs may have tried their level best but due to manufacturing defect in the machine they could not rectify the defect even in about one year. The contention of the OPs is that there was only a minor defect in which due to pressure of the water the valve started malfunctioning and was not able to cut the water inlet due to which the water overflows from the machine.  Had it been a minor defect the OPs would not have harassed their customer like this, who had to make 50 complaints to them.  Further more many a times a normal person does not complain to the suppliers for every defect on each day but prefers not to use the machine and therefore the problem faced by the complainant can be gauged from this fact that for about one year the complainant had to suffer mental torture due to the supply of a defective machine by the OPs, which even inspite of repeated complaints was not replaced or repaired. Their contention that they sent their senior technician to replace the machine is not supported by any evidence but inspite of many complaints they never wrote to the complainant that they were going to replace the machine.  Otherwise also if there was any intention on the part of the OPs to replace the machine, they could have sent the new machine on any day when their service engineers went to the house of the complainant to repair the defective machine. This contention of OP-1 and OP-2 therefore cannot be accepted as correct.

9.            The Learned Counsel for the complainant has alleged that now a new machine has been purchased by the complainant and therefore he does not need the old machine to be repaired or replaced. Needless to mention that the complainant had given a long hand to the OPs to repair the machine but the OPs were not able to repair the machine and ultimately the complaint has to abandon the same.  The grievance of the complainant therefore cannot be achieved now by ordering the replacement of the machine.

10.          In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to take back their defective machine from the complainant and refund to him the amount of Rs.13,250/- alongwith Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing him mental and physical harassment alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.1,100/-. The amount be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the entire amount alongwith penal interest @12%p.a, since the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 9.07.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.