DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.263 of 2016

                                                   Date of institution:  10.05.2016

                                                   Date of decision   :  10.04.2019

Manoj Seth son of Shri Tribhuwan Nath Seth, resident of House No.60, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s. Luminous Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Plot No.221, Udjog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurugram (Gurgaon) Haryana 122016 through its authorised person.

2.     M/s. R.D. Sons c/o Show Room No.15, Phase 11, SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab, authorised dealer of M/s. Luminous Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through its Prop.

……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:     Shri G.S. Khatra, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Makhan Singh, Coordinator # 4490, Maloya Colony Chandigarh representative of OP No.1 in person.

None for OP No.2.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                Complainant purchased water purifier ‘Livpure’ touch 2000 series RO System on 08.02.2015 from OP No.2. That product was manufactured by OP No.1. After sometime of its installation, complainant noticed some dead ants floating in the filtered water stored in the tank and thereafter he lodged service request No.JS16011600781, which was attended by one Rahul, an employee of OPs. That employee cleaned the tank by dismantling the storage tank. Again some dead ants were found floating in the filtered water stored in the tank. One dead cockroach in the RO system was found and thereafter complaints with OPs were registered on 22.01.2016 and 23. 01.2016 through e-mails. Request for replacing the defective RO was put forth, but no service agent sent for attending the complaint. On lodging of further complaint on 04.04.2016, a service agent was sent in the first week of April, 2016, who repaired the water tank by pasting rubber around the same. That employee of OPs assured that the defect has been completely removed, but in fact the same has not been removed. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to replace the defective water purifier RO system with new one. Compensation for mental harassment and agony as well as of physical harassment of Rs.1.00 lakh alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply submitted on behalf of OP No.1, it is admitted that OP No.1 is manufacturer of the water purifier purchased by complainant from OP No.2 on 08.02.2015. This water purifier was having one year standard warranty i.e. from 09.02.2015 to 08.02.2016. Installation of the water purifier took place at house of complainant on 09.02.2015. Liability of company is to repair or replace the part of defective product for period of 12 months from the date of final invoice. Reverse osmosis membrane, anti scalant cartridge etc. are subject to normal wear and tear in the course of use and they are not covered under warranty. As per terms and conditions of warranty, inspection and test report of the company’s office/service centre to be treated as final and binding. Liability of the company is limited to the defects which occur under conditions of normal operation and on account of proper use as defined in the manual.  It is claimed that service request No.JS160116000781 allegedly lodged by complainant was duly attended by service technician of OP No.1, who cleaned the tank by dismantling the storage tank. It is claimed that virtually the complaint was lodged by complainant only on 16.01.2016 i.e. after 11 months from the date of purchase.  This complaint on 16.01.2016 alleged to be the only complaint that was lodged by complainant during the first 11 months of warranty period.  Benefits under the warranty were provided to the complainant as per terms of the warranty. Request on 29.03.2015 was submitted by complainant for re-installation of the water purifier at some other place and that request was closed by service engineer of OP No.1 on 30.03.2015. Request submitted by complainant on 25.05.2015 was for preventive maintenance and that was also closed by service engineer of OP No.1, as per terms of the warranty. Again on 18.08.2015, complainant submitted request for preventive maintenance and the same was closed by service engineer of OP No.1 on 19.08.2015. On 05.01.2016 similar request for preventive maintenance submitted by complainant was closed by service engineer of OP No.1 on the same date itself. Mention of these service requests of dates 29.03.2015, 25.05.2015, 18.08.2015 and 05.01.2016 not made in the complaint.  Service request submitted by complainant on 16.01.2016 even was closed by service engineer of OP No.1 on the same day. It is claimed that water purifier was working satisfactory for the first 11 months of warranty period and as such question of replacement of the product with new one does not arise. Rather it is claimed that complainant after seeing the expiry of warranty period, with malafide intentions by taking advantage of Consumer Protection Act, started leveling false and baseless allegations. Service request submitted on 04.03.2016 (after warranty period) was also closed by service engineer of OP No.1 after servicing the RO water purifier. Mention of this complaint even not made in the complaint. No complaint on 04.04.2016 was lodged by complainant. Service request submitted by complainant on 25.05.2016 even was closed by service engineer of OP No.1 on 26.05.2016 by servicing the RO. On this visit, technician of OP No.1 found that the water purifier was mishandled by complainant. That fact was brought to the notice of complainant on the spot itself. It is claimed that had there been dead ants floating in the filtered stored water of the RO, then complainant would have lodged the complaint during the first 11 months within warranty period. Complainant on one hand approached this Forum on 10.05.2016, but on the other hand approached OP No.1 for servicing of RO on 25.05.2016, which clearly shows that complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Complaint alleged to be filed for harassing OPs, so as to get cost of the product back with for getting undue gains.

3.             None appeared for OP No.2 in this case, though earlier one Mr. Ankur Mishra filed authority letter on behalf of OP No.2 on 14.10.2016.

4.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence.  On the other hand, Shri Atul Chhabra, Service Manager of OP No.1 tendered in evidence  his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and then closed evidence of OP No.1.

5.             Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and record gone through.

6.             Purchase of RO system in question by complainant from OP No.2 is a fact admitted by OP No.1 in the submitted reply and as such it is established that complainant purchased the water purifier in question from OP No.2 on 08.02.2015. Admittedly this water purifier manufactured by OP No.1. Liability for manufacturing defect certainly remains of the manufacturer and not of the seller and        as such certainly OP No.2 cannot be held liable for the fault in the purchased RO.

7.             Copy of warranty card Ex.C-1 is produced on record to show that purchased RO was installed on 09.02.2015. Admittedly that RO was to have warranty untill 08.02.2016. Complainant during warranty period lodged complaint on 03.02.2016 regarding manufacturing defect in the water purifier as is made out from the email Ex.C-2. Before that, request on 23.01.2016 even was submitted as per email copy Ex.C-3. In Ex.C-3 itself it is mentioned that earlier dead ants floating in the filtered water stored in the tank were noticed and now a dead cockroach is found in the filtered water tank. Email print dated 22.01.2016 (Ex.C-4) also produced on record to show that complainant lodged complaint regarding noticing of dead ants floating in the filtered water stored in the tank. As warranty period was to expire on 08.02.2016 and as such certainly from contents of Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, it is made out that complainant lodged complaints regarding surfacing of dead ants and cockroach in the filtered water storage tank prior to expiry of warranty period. Photostat copy of snapshot Ex.C-5 also produced to show that as if there was some insect in the stored filtered water in the water tank. OPs have not produced any record of any of the job sheets despite claiming that earlier requests were submitted by complainant on 29.03.2015, 25.05.2015, 18.08.2015, 05.01.2016 and 16.01.2016 were closed by service engineer. That record of service requests and the closure thereof bound to be with OP No.1, but they have withheld this record deliberately and as such it is obvious that OPs are suppressing the facts regarding closure of earlier requests. Rather complainant by producing documents able to establish that dead ants and cockroach were found floating in the filtered water stored in the water tank of RO and as such certainly complainant able to establish that he suffered lot of mental tension, agony and harassment due to surfacing of dead ants and cockroach in the filtered water meant for consumption of complainant and his family members. How the dead ants and dead cockroach came in the stored filtered water in the water tank of the RO system, qua that no explanation offered by OPs and as such case of complainant is believable that complaints lodged by him regarding surfacing of dead ants and cockroach not attended by OPs. That amounts to gross deficiency in service on part of OP No.1, the manufacturer, who has to redress the grievance of the consumer within warranty period by deploying the technician. As the requests on 22.01.2016 and 23.01.2016 referred above, submitted just few days prior to lapse of warranty period and as such present is not a fit case in which direction should be issued to OP No.1 to replace the defective RO system with new one, but amount of compensation needs be somewhat genuine which should be double of the amount of price of RO system in question, so that complainant may be duly compensated. OP No.1 by rendering deficient services forced the complainant to enter into this litigation and as such complainant entitled to litigation expenses also. Payment of amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within specified period by OP No.1, failing which complainant should be held entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on these amounts from today till payment. Issue of this direction is essential so that OP No.1 may not harass the complainant more.

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed against OP No.1 in terms  that OP No.1 will pay compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.25,000/-  (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-  (Rs. Five Thousand only)  to the complainant. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on these amounts from today till payment. Complaint against OP No.2 is, however, dismissed.  Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

April 10, 2019

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member