Nr. Forest Office,                                         :         Complainant

P.O. Chovva,

Kannur-6

1. M/s.  Nandilath G- Mart,

    G-Mart Corner,

    Kannur-670006

(rep. by Adv. K.K. Balaram)

2. M/s.  Whirlpool of India Ltd,

    Corporate Office,

    Plot No.40,

    Sector-44, Gurgaun-122002.                  :         Opposite Parties

3. M/s.  Whirlpool of India Ltd,

    28, NIT Head Corporate,

    Consumer Cell,

    Faridabad – 121001,

    Hariyana

(2^nd and 3^rd OP rep. by Adv. K. Krishnan)

O R D E R

Smt. M.D. Jessy, Member

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection  Act for directing the opposite party to pay compensation for the defective service rendered by opposite party.  

          The complainant’s case in brief is as follows :  On 06.04.2011 complainant purchased one water purifier from the shop of 1^st opposite party by paying `13,650.  The said equipment was manufactured by M/s. Whirlpool India Ltd, which is represented by 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party. The purifier was installed at the house of the complainant by Company’s technician.  The purifier worked only about 3 months. Thereafter it was not functioned.  Complainant informed about the defect of the purifier to the service centre.  The technician inspected the defective purifier set from the house of the complainant. They opined that the malfunctioning of the purifier is due to the law input water pressure.  They removed the connection towards R.O. system where process of purifying the water taking place and direct connection was given to the tank of the purifier.  Thereafter the automatic cut off system was not working.  Since direct connection was given to the tank, the water is not purifying.  The entire purpose for which the purifier purchased was failed.  The allegation of the opposite party that the set is not working properly due to the low water pressure is not correct.  Complainant alleges that there is manufacturing defect to the water purifier supplied by the opposite party.  Eventhough complainant demanded to opposite party for replacing the same it was not done.  The lawyer notice issued by the complainant was also not replied.  Hence the above complaint filed.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite parties appeared and filed version.   1^st opposite party is the dealer who admits that on 06.04.2011 complainant purchased a water purifier which is manufactured by 2^nd opposite party.  The said product was reported defective and complaint was lodged.  The technician deputed by 3^rd opposite party checked the water purifier and found that the water purifier is not working automatically because of the low pressure of water connection in the complainant’s house.  If the complainant rectifies defect the purifier will work automatically.  The machine is not having any manufacturing defect.  There is neither any need to replace the water purifier nor to pay its cost to the complainant.

          2^nd and 3^rd opposite party filed version and the material contentions are as follows.  The purchase of the water purifier by the complainant on 06.04.11 from 1^st opposite party is admitted.  The said set is having one year warranty.  After 3 months of purchase complainant lodged a complaint about the non-functioning of the purifier.  The technician examined the water purifier from the house of the complainant.  Then it was found that the low pressure (L.P.)switch of the set was not functioning.  This was due to there was not sufficient water pressure to enable the automatic cut off function of the set.  The L.P switch of the water purifier will function only if there is sufficient pressure in the flow of incoming water.  For the working of the automatic function of the water purifier the functioning of the L.P. switch is a must.  The machine is now working manually as the contacts to the L.P. switch are now disconnected by the service officials.  In order to function the purifier properly, the complainant should take measures to improve the pressure of input water.  If the complainant rectifies the defect the product will work automatically.  There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

          On the above pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.

1.        Whether the water purifier purchased by the complainant is defective in any aspect?

2.        Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party towards complainant?

3.        Whether the complainant is entitled to get remedy as prayed?

4.        Relief as to cost?

The evidence consists of chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A6 marked and examined PW1.  Opposite party’s side Ext.B1 and B2 marked and DW1 examined. 

Issue No.1 and 2 :

          The fact that complainant purchased a water purifier from the shop of opposite party by paying `13,650 on 06.04.2011 is admitted by opposite party.  The product is branded by M/s. Whirlpool India Ltd and represented by 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties also admitted that the set was purchased by the complainant is having one year warranty.  Complainant’s case is that after installation the water purifier was worked only for 3 months.  There after the set was not functioned.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties in their version admitted that after 3 months of the purchase a complaint was lodged by the complainant regarding the non-functioning of his water purifier.  Hence the defect of the water purifier whatever it may be happened with in the warranty period.

          The authorized technician deputed by 3^rd opposite party inspected the water purifier on 08.11.11 from the house of the complainant.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite party in their version specifically admitted that at the time of inspection of their technician the low pressure switch of the water purifier was not working.  Due to the non-functioning of LP switch the automatic cut of function was also not working.  Hence the LP. Switch was disconnected and water connection was given directly.  Now the machine is working manually. Opposite party alleged that due to the low pressure of incoming water from complainant’s water tank the entire malfunction on the water purifier had been occurred.  For curing the defect the only way available is to increase the incoming water pressure from water tank which is to be provided by the complainant.  The said contention of the opposite party manifestly have some drawbacks first one is that when the water purifier was installed by the technician there was no such problem.  The water purifier worked without any trouble for 3 months.  There is no case that the complainant changed the position of his water tank so as to decrease the water pressure.  When the water pressure is constant we can not accept the above contention of opposite party’s on normal prudence.  The second aspect is that if the water purifier can be worked only upon certain incoming water pressure it is a condition precedent.  The opposite parties should inform the complainant that for working the purifier properly he should provide high pressure flow of water.  If the complainant can provide such a flow of water then only he need to purchase the water purifier.  No where incidence it is pointed out by the opposite party that for functioning the water purifier such and such flow of water is necessary.  Hence both these aspects the contentions raised by the opposite party is having no basis at all.  The opposite parties cannot wash their hands by laddening the liability upon the complainant.  The opposite parties should have taken measures to reinstate the functioning of the water purifier.  Hence there is definitely caused deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  The opposite parties should have taken reasonable care to rectify the defect of the water purifier with in its warranty period.  Here the opposite parties are trying to blame the complainant for the non-functioning of the water purifier.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect of the water purifier.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to do the same. The issues are answered accordingly. 

Issue No.3 and 4 :

          Eventhough in the complaint complainant demanded a compensation of `25,000 from the opposite party for their defective service but during cross examination he admitted that “]gb skäv amän ]pXnb skäv C³ÌmÄ sN¿Wsa¶mWv Fsâ Dt±iyw.  ]pXnb skäv X¶m 25,000 cq]bpsS BhiyanÃ.”  As it is found that the water purifier is not working due to its manufacturing defect the opposite parties should have replace the same with a  new one of the same brand to the satisfaction of the complainant.  Complainant has to return the old purifier to opposite party on installing of new purifier or payment of the amount. If the opposite party could not install such a purifier due to the lack of incoming water purifier the opposite party should pay back the price of the purifier by taking back the same.  The complainant was dragged by opposite party to a certain extent.  Hence opposite parties are also liable to pay `1000 as cost of the proceedings and the issues are answered accordingly. 

          In the result complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to replace defective water purifier installed at the house of the complainant with a new one of the same brand to the satisfaction of the complainant and if it is not possible opposite party should pay `13,650 (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only) as price of the purifier and `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Failing which, the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per Consumer Protection Act.

          Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2012.

                                   Sd/-                          Sd/-                    

                                 President                   Member                 

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Invoice dated 06.04.2011.

A2. Contract for service (invoice) dated 21.06.04.

A3.  Acknowledgment card.

A4.  Acknowledgment card.

A5.  Copy of lawyer notice dated 13.12.11.

A6.  Letter issued by complainant to opposite party dated 27.10.11..

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.  Authorisation.

B2.  Job sheet

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1. Mahesh V.

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT