Per Shri Pradeep G. Kadu, Hon’ble President

Brief facts of the case.

1)      This is a complaint under Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. The briefly stated facts and contentions of the complainant in the case are as follows:

2)      The complainant Mr Subhash Saigal had a Water Purifier of ACTIS AQUA Grand Company and the said purifier had an issue/ problem. During his regular AMC works in continuation with the first vendor, he entered into an AMC contract with another vendor M/s Watercare Sales and Service through its so called owner Mr Satish Kadam, the Opp. Party. However, after entering into a new service contract with the Opp. Party, the services given by Opp.Party were faulty and of substandard. The Opposite party didn’t turn up for service after first service in spite of continuous follow up on phone call. As there was no response to email communications and phone call, the complainant found cheated and hence to seek justice filed this complaint before this Commission for deficiency of service against the Opp. Party.

Contentions of opposite party 

3)      Notices along with complaint are duly served on the Opp.Party. In spite of this, the Opp. Party choose to remain absent before this Commission to represent his matter. After giving sufficient opportunities, the Opp. Party failed to take any action to represent his case. Hence, matter proceeded exparte against the Opp. Party and proceeded to settle the dispute on the basis of evidence brought to our notice by the complainant.

Observation and conclusion 

4)      The ccomplainant produced copy of Invoice showing payment receipt of Rs.3,875/-, Service cum Warranty Card mentioning date 18.04.2021 and copy of email sent to Opp. Party. On observation of Invoice, it is found that date of contract is mentioned as 18/04/2021 to 17/07/2022. However, no other things are mentioned such as how many services are agreed between the complainant and Opp. Party. On another part of the invoice/warranty card, Rs.3,875/- are shown against some parts. The said warranty card shows two visits to the complainant’s premises. The complainant mentioned certain defects in the water purifier however, the mentioned defects are not conclusive and can’t be confirmed whether these are related to the defect of product or related to AMC. The complainant didn’t brought the invoice of water purifier and earlier AMC copy on record which could have helped the complainant to specify the nature of defect whether it is related to the product itself, or due to earlier AMC or due to new AMC. The receipt produced on record is a kaccha hand written mentioning about some AMC period and supply of parts. This fails short to ascertain the nature of work agreed between the complainant and Opp. Party as the said invoice also mentions supply of parts to the complainant.

Conclusions and Findings

5)      From the above observations, we come to the conclusion that the documents submitted by complaint in support of the allegations of deficiency of service against Opp. Party are insufficient to fix some kind of liability on Opp. Party in this case. The complainant on his own terminated earlier AMC relying just on oral submission of the job worker who came to his residence for repairs of the water purifier. Said person came as a worker of the earlier service provider. Complainant had not verified the identity, authenticity of the persons who offered him another AMC.  Hence, it would be unwise to decide on the claimed deficiency in the said complaint merely on the piece of paper claimed as warranty card or invoice. There are specific terms and conditions of AMC contracts are mentioned on the said piece of paper. To establish any allegation of any defect in goods or deficiency in a service there is a definite need of some authentic facts. Hence in our concerned opinion, in the instant case to hold opponent liable for any deficiency above evidences were required to be brought on record.

Responsibilities of a Consumer

Principles of buyer beware

6)      Caveat emptor i.e. buyer beware or let the buyer beware. It describes the concept of contract law that places the burden of due diligence on the buyer of a goods or service. It is a fundamental principle in commerce and contractual relationship between a buyer and a seller. Various efforts have been made by government and non-government organizations to protect the interest of consumer but exploitation of consumer will stop only when consumer himself will come forward to safeguard his own interest. Consumers have to bear some responsibilities. In impugned case, few of such responsibilities are worthy to be noted as given below:

1. Cautious Consumer :- The consumer should not blindly believe on the words of seller. He must insist on getting full information on the quality, quantity, utility, price etc. of the goods or services.

2. The awareness among consumers will make the sellers more conscious to supply quality product.

3. Consumer must be Quality-Conscious :- The problems of supply of substandard goods, adulterated products and duplicate products can be solved only when consumer himself stops compromising the quality of product. While purchasing the goods or services consumer must look for quality marks such as ISI mark, Agmark, ISO, Wool Mark, etc.

4. Do not be carried away by Advertisements :- The advertisements often exaggerate the qualities or features of product or service. The consumer must compare the actual use of product with the use shown in advertisement and whenever there is any discrepancy or difference it must be brought to the notice of sponsor of advertisement and insist to stop showing exaggerated qualities.

5. Insist on Cash Memo :- To file a complaint the consumer needs the evidence of purchase, and cash memo is the evidence or proof that consumer has paid for the goods or service. A seller is bound to give a cash memo even if buyer does not ask for it. Customers’ primary duty when making purchases of durable goods is to maintain copies of the receipts, warranty documents, service/AMc agreements, etc.

7)      In nutshell, consumers must realize that buying any product or service is an active decision that they take and this demands some due-diligence on their part in terms of knowing what level of safety assurance, quality standards, etc. would be required from what you are purchasing..

In the impugned case, the documents and evidences brought on record by complainant are insufficient to ascertain the defect in goods or deficiency in service provided by Opp.Party. Hence, we are of the concerned view that the said complaint deserves to be rejected due to insufficient information and lack of evidence. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

1)      Consumer Complaint No.CC/228/2021 stands dismissed.

2)      No order as to costs.

3)      The copy of order be sent to both the parties free of costs.