BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ========== Complaint Case No: 90 of 2011 Date of Institution : 21.02.2011 Date of Decision : 16.05.2011 B.C.Kakar, House No.303, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh ….…Complainant V E R S U S M/s Maxxpro (India), Shop No.2, Near Bus Stop, Village Dadu Majra, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh 0172-6573831 ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued by: Complainant in person. OP already exparte. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.B.C.Kakar against M/s. Maxxpro (India) for refund of Rs.5200/- for defective supply of a Water purifier (RO) purchased on 3.7.2010. Briefly stated, the complainant has purchased a Maxxpro Water (RO) from the OP for Rs.5200/-, the receipt of which has been placed on record. The OP had issued a warranty for the same dated 3.7.2010. As per terms & conditions of the warranty, the products is warranted against and manufacturing defect caused by faulty of defective material or workmanship for a period of 12 months from the date of invoice. The complainant has alleged that the R.O. system became defective soon after its purchase and ants/cockroaches started entering from its back side, hence he was not able to get clean drinking water. Also despite many requests made by him to the OPs, the problem was not rectified. He has thus filed the instant complaint with request that the OP be directed to refund the amount of R.O. system as well as Rs.350/- for candle replacement charges, along with compensation and litigation charges. 2] After admission, notice was sent to the OP. Sh.Yogesh K.Jassal, Advocate appeared for Opposite Party on 28th March, 2011 but thereafter none appeared for the OP. Therefore, the OP was proceeded exparte on 11th April, 2011. 3] Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 4] We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record. 5] It is evident that the complainant is suffering due to the defect in the R.O.System. There is probably a hole in the R.O.System due to which ants/cockroaches have been entering inside. The OP has failed to rectify the defect despite warranty. 6] In our opinion a consumer should not made to suffer in this way. When a product is purchased, it is expected to give usage to the consumer, and the supplier must ensure that the consumer is able to make full and adequate use of the product purchased. An R.O. System is expected to give absolute clean and not ant infested water. Hence we deem it proper to allow the complaint in favour of the complainant and direct the OP to refund the invoice price of the R.O.System to the complainant. 7] This complaint is accordingly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.5200/- i.e. the invoice price of the R.O.System, to the complainant. OP must also pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the OP shall pay Rs.7200/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 21.2.2011 till the actual payment. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room. Announced 16.05.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
