Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/363

Dr.Abhishek Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Livpure Smart Home Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Gandhi

19 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  363 dated 31.08.2023.                                       Date of decision: 19.09.2024. 

 

Dr. Abhishek Goyal, resident of 69-A, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.95011-02345.                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Livepure Smart Homes Private Ltd., Registered Office WZ-106/109, Rajori Garden Extension, Delhi-110027 through its Managing Director.
2. M/s. Livepure Smart Homes Private Ltd., Khasra no.13/18/2, Goyal Estate Garden, Jalandhar Road, Near Ladhowal Brdige, Ludhiana Through its Incharge.144007.                                                                                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act as amended upto date.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Dr. Rakesh Gandhi, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a water filter LIV-PLATINO+COPPER2000 (RO+UV+UF+Min+TE) vide invoice No.23-24/2513830386 dated 03.04.2023 for Rs.18,000/- including installation charges. At the time of installation of RO by team of the OPs, it was observed that RO machine was not working properly and it was a defective piece and was also causing leakage and they requested to install the machine later on after its repair to which the complainant refused to install a repaired piece. Even the team of the OPs admitted the fact of supply of a defective item. The complainant stated that he requested the OPs to refund his amount. Even he approached the OPs through customer care help centre by way of Emails but the OPs refused to refund his money rather offered to replace the item. However, representative of the OPs promised to refund the entire amount but thereafter, the OPs neither replace nor installed the RO machine nor refunded the amount despite various correspondence by way of Emails. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part due to which the complainant claimed to have suffered mental loss, agony and torture. The complainant sent legal notice dated 05.06.2023 upon the OPs but to no effect. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to refund the entire amount along with interest or to replace and to install the new RO machine. The complainant also prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation  and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OP1 despite service of notice through registered post and as such, OP1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.11.2023.

                   OP2 was ordered to be served through publication in Daily Chardi Kala, Patiala for 23.05.2024 but none turned up on behalf of OP2 despite service through paper publication and as such, OP2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.05.2024.           

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of tax invoice dated 03.04.2023 of Rs.18,000/-, Ex. C2 to Ex. C11 is the copy of Email correspondence, Ex. C12 is the copy of screen shot of whatsapp chatting, Ex. C13 is the copy of legal notice dated 05.06.2023, Ex. C14 and Ex. C15 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the exparte arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit produced on record by the complainant.     

5.                Indisputably, the complainant purchased LIV-PLATINO+COPPER2000 (RO+UV+UF+Min+TE) vide invoice dated 03.04.2023 Ex. C1. The case of the complainant is that at the time of installation, the team of the OPs observed that the RO Machine is not working due to defective one and was also causing leakage. The complainant vide Email dated 06.04.2023 Ex. C2 lodged complaint with the OPs and requested for return of the product and for refund of the money. The complainant also raised his grievance with the OPs vide email Ex. C6 as well as Ex. C7. However, the OPs vide Email Ex. C8 told the complainant that as per their company policy refund not possible after installation and offered replacement of the product. Later on the complainant agreed for replacement of the product and showed his willingness vide email dated 17.04.2023 Ex. C11 and even sent legal notice dated 05.06.2023 Ex. C13 either for refund of entire amount or to replace and install new RO machine but the OPs did not make any effort to resolve the issue either by replacement and installation of new RO or to refund the amount of the RO.

6.                In this regard, Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act defines ‘unfair trade practice’ which means trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, the relevant portion of clause (viii) is as under:-                                     

 (viii)  refusing, after selling goods or rendering services, to take back or withdraw defective goods or to withdraw or discontinue deficient services and to refund the consideration thereof, if paid, within the period stipulated in the bill or cash memo or receipt or in the absence of such stipulation, within a period of thirty days.

So in the given set of circumstances, the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and as such, it would be just and appropriate if the OPs are directed to the refund Rs.18,000/- i.e. the invoice  value of the product as per invoice Ex. C1 subject to handing over of R.O by the complainant to the OPs within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and a composite costs of Rs.7,000/-  is ordered.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is exparte partly allowed with an order that the complainant will hand over the RO in question to the OP2 office at Ludhiana within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the OPs shall refund Rs.18,000/- i.e. the invoice  value of the product as per invoice Ex. C1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of RO from the complainant. The OPs shall further pay composite cost of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.09.2024.

Gobind Ram.