DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.139 of 30.5.2007<br /> Decided on : 6.9.2007<br /> <br /> Charanjit Singh S/o Sh. Major Singh C/o Dr. Mohinder Kumar, R/o village Bhalaiana, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Bathinda.<br /> .....Complainant<br /> Versus <br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Tele Aqua Care System, near Personal Point, 100' Road, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda through its Proprietor/Owner/Partner.<br /> 2. Eureka Forbes, Bhupesh Gupta Bhavan, 85 Sayani Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai through its Managing Director/Director/Chairman.. <br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Sandeep Singh, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. S.K. Bhatnagar, Proprietor of opposite party<br /> No.1 in person <br /> Sh. Parveen Kashyap, Authorised representative on<br /> behalf of opposite party No.2<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant had purchased an Aqua Guard Reviva Smart (R.O) bearing Sr. No. 8002900 from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 8,990/- vide bill No.195 dated 18.8.2006. The same was installed by opposite party No.1 at his residence. Opposite party No.2 is the manufacturing company of this product and opposite party No.1 is the authorised dealer. Warranty of one year was given with the assurance that product would function effectively. In case, R.O creates any problem and any defect creeps in it within the warranty period, the same would be replaced. After some time after the date of purchase, R.O stopped functioning properly as it had developed serious defects. There is some manufacturing defect in it. It is not giving even a drop of filtered water for the last about one month. Opposite party No.1 was approached for replacing the product. It did not pay any heed. He got served legal notice dated 26.4.2007 upon opposite party No.1 through his counsel with the request to get the defect removed or replace the product. False reply of the notice was given. Opposite party No.1 was saying that he should bring the product at his office. Act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused him mental tension, agony and loss to his reputation. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the Aquaguard Reviva Smart and pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation, besides Rs. 3,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite party No. 1 filed its reply admitting the sale of Aqua Guard Reviva Smart to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.8,990/- vide retail invoice No. 195 dated 18.8.2006 and its installation at the residence of the complainant on the same day i.e. 18.8.2006. It further admits that warranty of one year was given by the company. It denies manufacturing defect in the product. Its plea is that proper services were provided to the complainant. On 18.11.2006, filters were cleaned and adopter was changed which had gone off due to fluctuation in electricity supply. Complainant was advised to instal Stabilizer to control the voltage. On 10.2.2007, filters were cleaned and product was functioning. Again on 30.3.2007, complaint was attended and Adopter was changed second time. Complainant was again advised to instal Stabilizer to control current fluctuation. Thereafter, on 7.4.2007, nozzle was changed which had broken due to mishandling by the complainant. R.O system was working alright and complainant had signed the job sheet. It admits the receipt of the legal notice to which reply dated 26.4.2007 was sent asking the complainant to bring the R.O System at its centre to check the fault as per company terms, but the complainant never brought it for check-up. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.2 filed its version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable, complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It denies that it is manufacturer of Aquaguard Reviva Smart. It is only marketing the product and relationship between it and opposite party No. 1 is not that of agent and principal, but the agreement between them is on principal to principal basis. It denies that there is any manufacturing defect or any other defect in the machine. Complainant has been using the machine without any problem since its installation i.e. 18.8.2006. It further adds that free services under warranty were provided to the complainant on the following dates:-<br /> Date Visit type Work details Parts replaced <br /> 18.8.2006 Installation Installation Nil<br /> 18.11.2006 M.S.1 Service Nil<br /> 10.2.2007 M.S.2 Service Nil <br /> 30.3.2007 M.S Service Nil <br /> 7.4.2007 Complaint Service Pre-filter nozzle <br /> As per history card of the machine maintained by opposite party No.1 after its installation on 18.8.2006, first complaint was received from the complainant on 7.4.2007 i.e. almost after eight months of installation. A machine with manufacturing defect cannot work for almost eight months. On 7.4.2007 also a routine minor snag was cured by opposite party No. 1. At the time of inspection of the machine, no defect was found which was not curable. It has shown readiness and willingness for sending the machine to a Govt. Laboratory as per section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act for checking the veracity of the allegations of the complainant. It denies the receipt of legal notice from the complainant. It adds that the machine was inspected on 30.6.2007 and it was found to be working perfectly. Complainant was satisfied with the machine, but he refused to sign the acknowledgement of the services rendered. It denies deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Charanjit Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.5), photocopy of bill dated 18.8.2006 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of warranty card (Ex.C.3) & copy of legal notice dated 26.4.2007 (Ex.C.4).<br /> 5. On behalf of opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. Parveen Kashyap of opposite party No. 2 & Surender Kumar Bhatnagar, Proprietor of opposite party No.1 respectively, photocopies of service record (Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.4) and photocopy of warranty terms and conditions. <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. S.K. Bhatnagar, Proprietor of opposite party No. 1 and Sh. Parveen Kashyap, authorised representative of opposite party No.2. Apart from this, we have perused the record and considered the written arguments submitted by the parties.<br /> 7. Sale of Aquaguard Reviva Smart (R.O) through retail invoice, copy of which is Ex.C.2, is not in dispute. It was installed at the residence of the complainant by opposite party No. 1 on 18.8.2006. Warranty provided to the complainant is for a period of 12 months from the date of installation or 15 months from the date of sale whichever is earlier. Ex.C.3 is the copy of the warranty card and Ex.R.5 copy of the terms and conditions of the warranty. According to the terms and conditions, the customer is to notify the Company in writing promptly of any defects noticed and give the Company or its authorised agent adequate opportunity to inspect, test and remedy them for which the Customer will deposit the Goods if so required by the Company, with the Company's office/service centre alongwith original invoice, in the city where they are sold. Inspection and test report of the Company's office/service centre will be final and binding under the Warranty for determining defects, repairs/alterations required or carried out or certifying the working of the Goods thereafter. Consumables like Sediment Filter, Carbon Filters and Membrane are not covered under this warranty. There are some other terms and conditions of the warranty as well.<br /> 8. Onus to prove the averments in the complaint is upon the complainant. He is required to establish them by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. They cannot be said to have been proved on the basis of presumptions and assumptions.<br /> 9. In para No. 4 of the complaint, complainant alleges that his happiness in purchasing the product remained for a short time as it stopped functioning/working properly and developed serious defects. It is not functioning properly because of some manufacturing defect and is not giving even a drop of filtered water for the last about one month. Complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. Except his bald affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.5 and copy of the notice sent by him to opposite party No.1, there is no other evidence of the complainant to support his version. He has not disclosed specific manufacturing defect in the Aquaguard Reviva Smart (R.O) purchased by him. It was the duty of the complainant to lead expert evidence which is lacking. His vague plea i.e. it is not functioning because it has some manufacturing defect, cannot be given any weight. Admittedly, product was installed on 18.8.2006. This is also evident from copies of the service record which are Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.4. Service card reveals that proper services were provided to the complainant as and when required i.e on 18.11.2006, 10.2.2007, 30.3.2007 & 7.4.2007. Either complainant or his representative signed the service card certifying that the product is alright means okay. Last date when complainant signed the service card is 7.4.2007. As mentioned above, product was installed on 18.8.2006 and as per service card, it was okay on 7.4.2006. When it is so, how does it lie from the mouth of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in it. Manufacturing defect is one which starts existing at the time of its manufacturing and that it is not curable. Complainant has not been able to establish such manufacturing defect in the product. Machine with manufacturing defect cannot work for about eight months. On 7.4.2007, a routine minor snag was cured by opposite party No.1 by replacing pre-filter nozzle. Even on 30.6.2007, Sh. Praveen Kashyap of opposite party No.2 had inspected the machine and it was found working properly as is clear from his affidavit Ex.R.1.<br /> 10. In the premises written above, conclusion is that neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is proved. Complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 6.9.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> 'bsg' Member <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />