Kerala

Trissur

CC/10/28

Ahammed makkai - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Water Socter - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. M C Munavar

28 Sep 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMAyyanthole , Thrissur
Complaint Case No. CC/10/28
1. Ahammed makkaiS/o Ahammed Vidyar,Ambalath (H),TriprayarThrissurKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. M/S Water SocterRep by Sunil,Kalyan Ram Residency,Near Kousthubham Auditorium,Shornur RoadThrissurKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE Rajani P.S. ,MemberHONORABLE Sasidharan M.S ,Member
PRESENT :Adv. M C Munavar, Advocate for Complainant

Dated : 28 Sep 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Rajani.P.S, Member:
 
          The case of complainant is as follows: The respondent installed a water softener 63L Ice World Water Purification System in the complainant’s house as per invoice No.TW/09/4 dated 2009. This product costs Rs.62,766/- and has one year guarantee. The complainant made to install this as attracted by the advertisements and the details given in the brochure and specifications. Other than this the quality of the water is not so good to use for drinking, cooking and for other domestic purposes. This product was installed in order to purify the water and so as to avoid the demerits of impure water and to protect the internal organs. But the product did not work as promised by the respondent and the family members felt so many bodily discomforts and bad taste to food. Other than this water was flowing out forcibly as it was not working effectively. The complainant had kidney diseases by using the water from this product and he spent Rs.6500/- for the treatment and diagnosis of the disease. The complainant intimated the matter to the respondent over telephone and also directly. But not repaired the product. A lawyer notice was sent on 9.10.2009. As the product was not repaired the complainant forced to buy purified water from outside and there by spent Rs.15,000/- towards it. The said product seems to be a mere waste and thereby the respondent showed a serious deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. 
 
          2. The respondent is called absent and set exparte.
          3. To prove the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit and the documents produced are marked as Exts. P1 to P4.
 
          4. According to the complainant, he purchased a water softener 63 L for Rs.62,766/- as per invoice No.TW/09/4 dt. 2009 from the respondent and installed it in his house being attracted by the offers of the respondent himself and also by the advertisement through brochure and specifications. But the product did not function as promised and the family members felt bodily discomforts and had bad taste to food. Other than this the product was leaking also. The respondent offered one year guarantee to the product. By using the water from this product the complainant had kidney diseases and he forced to buy purified water from outside. There is no counter evidence.
 
          5. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return the Ext. P1 amount of the water softener and to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
 
 
          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 28th day of September 2010.

[HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member