Date of Filing:17.03.2017
Date of Order: 14.08.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
ON THIS THE WEDNESDAY THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019
C.C.No.118 / 2017
Between
Sri Govinda Jana,
S/o. Dnyanoba Jana, Aged about 67 years,
Occ: Private Employee,
R/o. Raghavendra Nilayam,, 564/2-17/1/A/16,
Tejaswini Nagar Colony,
Near Pillar No.123, Attapur,
Hyderabad – 500 048. ……Complainant
And
- M/s. Eureka Forbes,
Rep.by it’s Manager, 13-6-436/34 & 35,
Lakshmi Ring Road,
Mehdipatnam,
Hyderabad – 500 028.
- M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd.,
Rep.by its Regional Manager
6-3-789, 507, Pavani Prestige,
Ameerpet. Hyderabad – 500 016. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr.M.Mallikarjun Rao
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1) This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that the opposite party by not replacing the product sold to the complainant caused deficiency of service. Hence for a direction to replace the defective product with new one or to refund the cost of it with interest at 18% p.a. and to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony, sufferance and to award the cost of this complaint at Rs.3,000/-.
2) The complaint averments in brief are that :
While the complainant was intending to purchase a water purifier machine for drinking purpose the personnel of the opposite party No.1 visited him and explained about varies models of Aqua guard water purifiers and complainant agreed to purchase Dr.Aquaguard Megna 012271100560374 model at cost of Rs.12,990/-. The representative of the opposite party informed that the cost of the product can be paid in 10 installments. Hence complainant booked the said product on 7.11.2015 and the representative of opposite party No.1 collected 10 leaves of post dated Cheques at Rs.1,390/- each.
On 7.11.2015 the opposite party No.2 delivered the product booked by the complainant. After effecting delivery the representative of opposite party No.2 installed the water purifier and it worked smoothly for one month. Thereafter machine did not purify the water properly and same was brought to the notice of opposite parties customer care department .The opposite party deputed the technicians on several occasions. But they could not rectify the defect. Subsequently the customer care of the opposite party stopped responding to the complainant’s calls. Hence the complainant sent a letter by speed post to the opposite parties of 20.10.2016 in the name of General Manager and explained problem with the water purifier. But said letter was refused by opposite party No.1. There was no response from opposite party No.2. Hence the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
3) Opposite parties have filed a common written version admitting about sale of water purifier by them to complainant but denied the allegation of deficiency of service. The defense set out in the written version is that Aqua guard purifier was installed and it worked properly. Whenever complainant made a request opposite parties have deputed technicians to rectify the defect if any. The product sold to the complainant was under warranty and if any defect in the product is there it can be replaced during the warranty period. After warranty period the product cannot be replaced. Hence the complainant cannot allege that opposite parties by not replacing the product caused deficiency of service. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) In the enquiry the complainant got filed his evidence affidavit and substance of the same is in tune with the complaint averments. To support the same he has got exhibited 8 documents. For the opposite parties evidence affidavit of its Area Service Executive is got filed and his affidavit is nothing but replica to written version. 3 documents are exhibited for the opposite party. Both sides have filed written arguments.
5) On consideration of the material brought on the regard the following points have emerged for consideration :-
1. Whether the complainant could make out the case of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of the subject product or for refund of amount with interest and the compensation?
3. To what relief?
6) Point No.1: Purchase of Aqua guard water purifier from the opposite party by the complainant has been admitted by the opposite parties . It is also further stated by the opposite parties in the written version itself that whenever complainant made complaint as to the working of water purifier they have deputed technicians to rectify the defect by this statement the opposite parties have admitted that before filing of the present complaint the complainant made calls to the service center of the opposite party complaining about functioning of the product sold to him. The date of the delivery of the product to the complainant as evident from Exhibit A3 delivery challan is 7.11.2015. A copy of letter issued by the complainant to the Manager of opposite party No.1 and also opposite party No.2 under Exhibit A4 is on 20th October, 2016. It is not in dispute that earlier to this letter itself opposite parties have deputed technicians to rectify the defect to the product sold to the complainant. Under this exhibit A4 letter the complainant highlighted the problems that being faced by him with the product sold to him. He has categorically stated that the water has not been getting purified properly and said fact was brought to the notice of customer care of opposite party. But he received poor response. So it is crystal clear that the product sold to the complainant is having manufacturing defect and the opposite parties neither rectified nor replaced it with a new one. Since the product in question got a manufacturing defect and the technicians of the opposite parties failed to rectify it in spite of several visits and finally the opposite parties failed to respond to the calls of complainant , it amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
7) Point No.2:- Since the product to the complainant by the opposite parties got manufacturing defect they are liable to replace it with a new one or to refund the cost of it with interest. The opposite party by selling a product having manufacturing defect have caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
8) PointNo.3:- In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party :
1. To replace the water purifier with new one or refund the cost of it with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of sale of the defective product to the complainant to the date of payment.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for subjecting him mental agony by sale of product having manufacturing defect.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
Time granted for compliance is thirty days from service of this order.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on this the 14th day of August, 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 - Copy of receipt issued by opposite party
Ex.A2 – Copy of acknowledgment for documents.
Ex.A3 – Copy of the delivery challan
Ex.A4 – Copy of letter to the opposite party
Ex.A5 – Returned cover
Ex.A6 – Receipt dt.9.3.2017
Ex.A7 – Water Filter guarantee card
Ex.A8 - Receipt dt.9.3.2017
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 - Customer Service history
Ex.B2 - Service request activity report
Ex.B3 – Letter of authorization
MEMBER PRESIDENT
