Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/253/2013

S.James Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S.Devika

30 Oct 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 30.05.2013

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 30.10.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.253/2013

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

                                 

Mr. S. James Rajkumar,

No.23/24-1, Appu IInd Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                       ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

Eureka Forbes Limited,

No.75 B, V.G.P. Avenue,

Mettukuppam,

Thooraipakkam,

Chennai – 600 098.

 

3. M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited,

Represented by its Manager,

Service Center,

New No.31, Old No.14, First Floor,

Burkit Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. S. Devika & another

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. K. Subbu Ranga 

                                                                 Bharathi & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of the Water Purifier of Rs.13,990/-, to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- towards purchase of water cans and to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and torture suffered by the complainant and his family members with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased a RO water purifier – Eurosmile for a sum of Rs.13,990/- on 16.05.2012 from the Sales  Executive of the 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party is the Service Centre.  At the time of purchase, the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that the water purifier is good quality one and the same will be delivered immediately.   But the opposite parties has not delivered the water purifier immediately as promised by them and delivered installed the same after few days.   The complainant submits that the water purifier worked for only 2 months and started giving trouble continuously.  Immediately the same was reported to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party accepted the complaint and visited the complainant home serviced the machine.  The complainant submits that after 15 days of service again, the machine was not working and the complainant lodged 2^nd complaint with the 2^nd opposite party but no response from the 2^nd opposite party.   The complainant submits that repeatedly he was lodging the complaint to the opposite parties and at last, they came on 07.03.2013 and told to change the filter candle.  But the complainant did not accept to change the filter because it            was purchased 11 months before only.  The complainant submits that only if at all filter candle has to be changed, it is to be done at free of charge and sent back the service person.   The complainant submits that he has sent an email through CAG (Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group) to the opposite party on 23.04.2013.   After receiving the same, the opposite party sent a reply to CAG stating that they are ready to replace it free of cost but the complainant did not allow them to change the filter.  The complainant submits that the opposite party sold the defective product.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite parties state that the complainant purchased a RO water purifier for a sum of Rs.13,900/- on 16.05.2012.  The opposite parties state that the complainant did not follow the user manual properly issued by the opposite party that is the reason the machine gave trouble within two months from the date of purchase.   The opposite parties attended all the complaints of the complainant and promptly provided good service.  The opposite parties state that they told the complainant to replace the chocked filter, for which, the complainant refused.   The opposite parties state that they are willing to replace the filters free of cost upon email complaint received from CAG (Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group) dated:23.04.2013.  But the complainant did not allow the service persons of the opposite parties inside his house and unreasonably kept demanding for a new machine.  The opposite parties state that they are not the manufacturers of the products.  The opposite parties state that they have not committed any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and document Ex.B1 alone is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.13,900/- towards the amount paid for water purifier as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards the purchase of water cans and  compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed their written arguments.  The complainant has not filed his written argument.   Heard both sides.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.   The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that he purchased a RO water purifier – Eurosmile for a sum of Rs.13,990/- on 16.05.2012 from the Sales  Executive of the 1^st opposite party as per Ex.A1, Ex.A2 is the copy of invoice and Ex.A3 is the copy of manual warranty.   The 2^nd opposite party is the Service Centre.  At the time of purchase, the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that the water purifier is good quality one and the same will be delivered immediately.   But the opposite party has not delivered the water purifier immediately as promised by them and delivered installed the same after few days, but the complainant has not filed any document to prove on which date the water purifier was delivered and installed.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the water purifier worked for only 2 months and started giving trouble continuously, Immediately reported to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party accepted the complaint and visited the complainant home serviced the machine as per Ex.A4.  On perusal of Ex.A4, work / detail column what type service done not anything mentioned. 

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that after 15 days of service again the machine is not working and the complainant lodged 2^nd complaint with the 2^nd opposite party.  But no response from the 2^nd opposite party  and the complainant has not filed any document.   Further the contention of the complainant is that repeatedly he was lodging the complaint to the opposite parties and at last they came on 07.03.2013 and wants change the filter candle.  But the complainant did not accept to change the filter because it is purchased 11 months before only.  If at all filter candle have to be changed, it is to be done free of charge told and sent back the service person as per Ex.A5.   On a careful perusal of Ex.A3(S), Warranty - Terms and Conditions which reads as follows:

“d) Consumable items like the Sediment Cartridge, Activated Carbon and Membrane that are subject to normal wear and tear are not covered by this Warranty”. 

As per the above clause the sediment cartridge /filter do not cover under this warranty is proved.   Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim change of filter free of charge by the opposite party.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he has sent an email through CAG (Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group) to the opposite party on 23.04.2013.   After receiving the same, the opposite party sent a reply to CAG stating that they are ready to replace it free of cost but the complainant did not allow them to change the filter.   The complainant stringently wants refund of the price of machine as per Ex.A8(S) proved.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties sold the defective product to him, but he has not taken any steps before this Hon’ble Forum to prove through the expert opinion.  Therefore, the complainant is disentitled to claim under manufacturing defect.  The burden of proof lies on the complainant to prove against the opposite party that they have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the complainant purchased a RO water purifier for a sum of Rs.13,900/- on 16.05.2012.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not follow the user manual properly issued by the opposite party that is the reason the machine gave trouble within two months from the date of purchase.   The opposite parties attended all the complaints of the complainant and promptly provided good service.  But no documents filed to prove the above said contention on the side of the opposite parties’.   On a careful perusal of the complainant’s side documents Ex.A4 revealed that the opposite party has done only one service with free of charge, it is admitted by the complainant also in his complaint, but the contention the opposite parties all the service done promptly to all the complaints of the complainant is not acceptable by this Forum.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that they told the complainant to replace the chocked filter, for which, the complainant refused, it is also admitted by the complainant and evidenced through Ex.A5 document filed on his side.   Further the contention of the opposite parties that they were willing to replace the filters free of cost upon email complaint received from CAG (Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group) dated:23.04.2013 as per Ex.A8(S), but the complainant did not allow the service persons of the opposite parties inside his house.   But the complainant unreasonably kept demanding for a new machine. 

8.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that they are not the manufacturers of the products.   The name of the manufacturer is Aqual Mall Ltd., it is mentioned in the machine and in the carton box of the water purifier.  Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party to proceedings.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that they have not committed any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on a careful perusal on documentary evidences on both sides and admission made by both parties in their complaint and written version.  This Hon’ble Forum came to a conclusion that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally shall replace the chocked filter with free of cost and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the chocked filter with free of cost and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of October 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	16.05.2012	Copy of the purchase bill issued by the opposite parties
Ex.A2	17.05.2012	Copy of Tax invoice issued by the opposite parties
Ex.A3		Copy of manual & warranty
Ex.A4	30.07.2012	Copy of service request activity report issued by the opposite parties
Ex.A5	15.03.2013	Copy of the letter sent by the complainant
Ex.A6	15.03.2013	Copy of the acknowledgement card
Ex.A7		Copy of the water can details
Ex.A8	23.04.2013	Copy of the email communications

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1

Copy of user manual – Warranty Terms and Conditions

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT