DATE OF FILING-9.10.2012
DATE OF DISPOSAL-22.1.2014
O R D E R
Mrs.Minati Pradhan,Member
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant resides at Flat No.3304,Shree Tower,Khallikote College Square, Berhampur and he purchased an Aquaguard(Reviva) water purifier through franchisee of Opposite Party No.1 and installed in his above residence. The cost of the Water Purifier was Rs.12,500/- vide money receipt No.1532 dt. 23.1.2006. The complainant also paid Rs.6520/- towards service charges for the service contract from 23.3.2011 to 22.3.2013 vide Invoice-cum-Receipt and Contract Receipt No.45-20407667. It is alleged by the complainant that on 11.8.2012 there was a problem found with the motor and base plate with wiring kit. On being complaint to Opposite Party No.3,
Technicians were deputed who changed the motor without changing the wiring kit and base plate. As a result, the water purifier was not used on the apprehensions of electric shock and damage of the machine inside the water purifier. Despite several persuasions the Opposite Parties did not made the water purifier workable. The complainant was constrained to drink water by purchasing the mineral water from open market. When all the efforts of the complainant did not yield any result, he filed this case with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties for replacement of the Aquaguard with a new one and compensation with cost of litigation of Rs.33,000/- as a whole for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Parties.
2- The Opposite Parties put their appearance through learned counsel and filed their written version denying all the allegations of the complainant being false, frivolous and concocted. However, they have not denied to have sold a Water Purifier on 23.1.2006 to the complainant through their franchisee. It is also admitted that there was service contract with the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 which was in force for the period from 23.1.2006 to 22.1.2007 and after expiry of the said warranty the service contract was extended. During the service contract in force, the complainant on 23.8.2012 reported regarding non-supply of water and on his report the technician of Opposite Party No.3 on the said day attended the said machine and detected the fault in the motor. The motor was not readily available and requisition was made and on receipt the motor was replaced on 27.8.2012. According to the Opposite Parties, the machine was working in absolutely normal manner wherein the supply of drinkable filtered water was continued as before. Regarding base plate, the same was not available immediately. The base plate was brought from Bangalore and when the same was brought to the complainant to fit it, the complainant did not allow them. Regarding the allegation of wiring kit it is baseless as it was replaced earlier on 22.3.2011 and working without any hinderance. According to the Opposite Parties, the allegations of the complainant are baseless, concocted and designed for the purpose of this case. The machine is working in good condition and the machine is absolutely hygienic and drinkable condition. It is contended by the Opposite Parties that the case filed by the complainant has no merit and deemed to be dismissed with cost.
3- The complainant in support of his case has filed certain documents which are marked as Annexure-I to IV respectively. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties do not prefer to file any document in support of their case.
4- We have gone through the case in detail and heard the case at a length. We have also gone through the documents filed on record and written arguments filed by the respective parties. It is not disputed before us that the Aquaguard Water Purifier was supplied by the Opposite Parties against receipt of consideration vide M.R.No.1532 dt.23.10.2006. The said water purifier was having extended warranty valid for the period from 23.3.2011 to 22.3.2013. During the warranty in force, the said water filter started giving problem on 11.8.2012 with motor base plate and wiring kit. It is admitted that the motor was changed without changing the wiring kit. The base plate was not changed. On the other hand, the contention of the Opposite Parties are that the base plate was not available at that time and when the same was brought to the house of the complainant to fix it, the complainant did not allow the Technicians of the Opposite Parties. It is alleged that without base plate the base fiber body got damaged on movement for which the water filter is remained unworkable condition since 11.8.2012. Nothing before us to corroborate the plea of the Opposite Parties that they had been to the house of the complainant to fix the base plate. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties have also not informed the matter in writing to the complainant about denial of the complainant to fix the base plate. In absence of any rebuttal evidence, we are not inclined to accept the pleas, whatsoever, of the Opposite Parties that they have made efforts to redress the grievance of the complainant.
4 In view of the above and considered to the case of the complainant, we are clear that the Opposite Parties have not attended the complaint of the complainant during the period of warranty and thereby the complainant has been deprived of using the water filter purchased by him from the Opposite Parties. Non-rendering of proper service to the complainant in proper time on the part of the Opposite Parties is deficiency in service and the complainant would be well compensated for the loss, damage and harassment caused to him during the relevant period under dispute. Under the above circumstance, the Opposite Parties would be jointly and severally liable to replace the defective Aquaguard Water Filer of same description with a new one to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant is at the same time directed to handover the defective Water Filter under dispute to the Opposite Parties on receipt of the new Aquaguard Water Filter as ordered above. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) to the complainant towards cost of litigation within the above period.
The case is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 22nd day of January,2014.
Sd/-N.Tuna Sahu, Sd/-Minati Pradhan
I AGREE(MEMBER) MEMBER
