Delhi

North East

CC/191/2018

Sh. Raghuvar Ram Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kent R.O. System Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.191/18

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Raghuvar Ram Gupta H. No. B-1/153 Opposite Gali No. 10 Harsh Vihar Delhi- 93	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	M/S Kent RO Systems Ltd. E- 6,7 & 8, Sector-59, Noida Uttar Pradesh-201309 M-Tech Electronics B-7 North Chhajupur, Main 100 Feet Road, Shahdara, Delhi-94 (Opposite Vishal Mega Mart)	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                      DATE OF DECISION:

07/09/2018 16.08.2022 10.10.2022

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a RO for a sum of Rs. 16,300/- vide Receipt No. 1036 dated 12.09.2017 from the Opposite Party No. 2. The said RO was found defective and the water was not sweet and as such on 28.12.2017 the Complainant made a complaint vide no. 037168 and a mechanic was sent by the Opposite Party No. 1 and he setting out the RO and stated that now the water would be sweet but all in vain.  After that the Complainant again made a complaint on 07.03.2018 to the Opposite Parties and  on 09.03.2018 a mechanic came vide receipt no. 282421 and changed Motor of the RO and stated that now the water would be sweet but all in vain. Thereafter the Complainant made a complaint on phone to the Opposite Parties and thereafter on one time and another the employee of the Opposite Parties came and demanded OTP and left without taking any care of the RO and as such the Opposite Parties have been miserably failed to remove the defects from the RO. On 27.08.2018, Complainant informed through E-mail to the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties but all in vain and RO is not in a working condition. The Complainant has prayed Rs. 50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It is alleged that the complaint filed by the Complainant is without any merit and the same is abused of the process of law. It is admitted that the Complainant purchased the RO from the Opposite Party No. 2. It is admitted that the Complainant made three complaints on different dates. All the three complaints were attended and addressed by the mechanic of Opposite Party No. 1. After filing of this complaint the Opposite Party No. 1 deputed one senior official to visit the premises of the Complainant and the said official visited the premises of the Complainant on 22.11.2018. He submitted his report. It was found that the RO in question was connected by the Complainant to the borewell water supply and one other RO installed in the house of the Complainant was connected with Municipal water supply.  It is stated that TDS percentage of the underground raw water was much higher that the municipal water supply and even than the RO in question was reducing the TDS to a level below 100. It is stated that the allegation of the Complainant cannot be believed. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Notice of the complaint was issued to the Opposite Party No 2 and the perusal of the record shows that it has refused to accept the notice.

Rejoinder to written statement of Opposite Party No.1

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein he has denied the objection raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Parties

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit stating therein that the facts mention in his complaint be considered true and correct.  He has not filed any detailed affidavit in support of his evidence. To support its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Surya Narayan Pati, working as Legal Head of M/s Kent RO Systems Ltd, having its Registered Office at H-35, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi – 110049 and Corporate Office at E-6,7 & 8 Sector 59, Noida 201309. In his affidavit, he has supported the case of Opposite Party no. 1.

Arguments and Conclusion

5. We have heard the Complainant. We also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one RO from Opposite Party No. 2. The said RO was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 1. It is the case that RO is not functioning properly as the taste of the water of the RO is not good. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the RO is functioning properly and so far as the taste of the water is concerned, the same is for the reason that the Complainant has connected his RO system with the borewell water instead of municipal water.
6. Now the question is that whether the functioning/guarantee/warranty of the water depends upon the source of water and the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the taste of the water is not up to the satisfaction of the Complainant as the Complainant has connected the RO with borewell water.  Now the question is that whether the RO system manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 1 can be connected with municipal water only for its proper functioning. The Opposite Party No. 1 has filed copy of Terms and Conditions of Warranty. The clause 4 of the said Terms and Conditions of Warranty is as under “This Warranty is void if the unit is not operated under normal municipal water or well water conditions or subjected to the temperature above 35°C”.
7. The perusal of the above mentioned clause 4 of the Terms and Condition of Warranty shows that RO system can be connected with the well water which is at par with borewell water. Therefore, the defence raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 cannot be accepted.
8. Therefore, in view of the above discussion the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No. 1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 16,300/- (i.e. cost of the RO) to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Complainant shall return back the RO to the Opposite Party No. 1 or its representatives. An amount of Rs. 6,000/- shall be paid by the Opposite Party No. 1  to the Complainant on account of harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
9. Order announced on 10.10.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President