Date of filing: 22.07.2014.
Date of disposal: 10.12.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 10th day of December, 2014
C.C.No.162 of 2014
Between:
G. Suredra Rao, 2nd Floor, Chaitanya Apartments, Guntupalli, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
…..Complainant.
And
1. M/s Samrat’s Water Wordl, Rep: by its Proprietor, D.No.29-37-60, Eluru Road, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada – 520 002.
2. M/s Samrat Technologies, Rep: by its Proprietor, Service Center, Dornakal Road, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada – 3.
3. M/s Kent Ro Systems Ltd., A 2, Sector – 59, Noida Post, Utter Pradesh.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 26.11.2014, in the presence of Sri K. Satya Sai Kumar, advocate for complainant; opposite parties 1and 2 remained absent; Service Manager of 3rd opposite party appeared and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties directing them to repay total cost of water purifier, Kent Supreme, Mineral machine worth Rs.16,700/- or replace the same with new one, to pay legal expenses of Rs.2,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- and for other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant purchased a Kent Supreme Mineral Machine (water purifier) from the 1st opposite party on 17-1-2014 for Rs.16,700/- and within few days the complainant faced lot of problem with the water purifier such as water tube leakage, water tank over flow, washer leak, waste water continuosly flowing. The complainant informed the same to 2nd opposite party who affected repairs, but of no use. As such the complainant stopped the usage of water purifier. The 2nd opposite party was unable to rectify the defects and the 2nd opposite party also refused to undertake repairs on the ground that the complainant did not handle the machine property. The complainant got issued notice on 16-6-2014 to the opposite parties, but of no use. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 to 3. On 1-9-2014 the Area service officer of 3rd opp. Party present in person before this Forum and stated that they will settle the matter. The 1st opposite party remained absent. Thereafter on 27-10-2014 the 3rd opposite party present and stated that the matter is settled. But on that date the complainant absent. Thereafter the complainant not reported about the progress of settlement.
3. While so, on 12-11-2014 the complainant filed affidavit reiterating the contents of complaint and stated that the opposite party has replaced the water filter with new one, but failed to provide a warranty card from the date of replacement i.e. on 3-9-2014 and prays to grant expenses of Rs.2000/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/-. To that extent, the complainant also filed a memo on 26.11.2014. On behalf of complainant, Ex.A1 to A6 are marked. Ex.A1 is invoice dt.17.1.2014 which proves the factum of purchasing of water purifier by complainant for Rs.16,700/-. Ex.A2 is warranty card, Ex.A3 is office copy of legal notice, Ex.A4 is postal receipts, Ex.A5 is acknowledgment of 1st opposite party and Ex.A6 is returned cover of 2nd opposite party.
4. As seen from the version of complainant and 3rd opposite party, it is clear that the complainant has got new water purifier from the 3rd opposite party on 3-9-2014. As such there is no need to look in to the merits of the case. The main grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to provide warrant card for new machine, which is nothing but gross negligence on the part of 3rd opposite party and as such prayed to grant costs of Rs.2000/- and compensation of Rs.5000/-. In this case, the 3rd opposite party after receipt of notices appeared before this Forum and settled the matter with complainant diligently by giving a new machine to complainant. As the 3rd opposite party replaced the defective system with new one, it is the bounden duty of 3rd opposite party to give warrant to the new product. Further as the 3rd opposite party acted diligently in settling the matter, we are not inclined to grant compensation. But in view of the facts of the case, the complainant is entitled for costs.
5. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the 3rd opposite party is directed to issue warranty card to the new water purifier supplied to complainant from the date of replacement and also to pay costs of Rs.500/-. Time for compliance is one month. The other claims of complainant if any shall stands dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 10th day of December, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite parties: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 17.01.2014 Photocopy of invoice.
Ex.A2 Photocopy of warranty card.
Ex.A3 16.06.2014 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A4 Postal receipts.
Ex.A5 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A6 Returned postal cover.
On behalf of the opposite parties:
PRESIDENT (FAC).
