Date of Filing : 19/05/2015
Order No. 17 dt. 29/01/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Zero B Emerald R.O. Water purifier equipment on 30.05.2012 at a price of Rs.17,070/-. After purchase the complainant noticed that the said product started to give trouble and reported to the company regarding the problem faced by the complainant. The complainant entered into an AMC for one year commencing from 03.08.2012 to 02.08.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.4,836/-. On the basis of the complaint the o.p. changed the back cabinet on 23.11.2013 In spite of such changing the trouble continued. The complainant further paid AMC for the year 2014-15. Since the month of September,2014 the water purifier was not functioning properly. The complainant requested the o.ps over telephone and e-mail for removing the defect of said product but no action was taken on behalf of the o.ps. The complainant thereafter had to purchase purifier drinking water from the market for which he had to incur expenses of Rs.10,800/-. On the basis of the said fact whenever the complainant noticed that the o.ps were not taking any step the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice on 28.01.2015 but the o.ps did not take any action for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps for replacement of the water purifier and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- and further Rs.50,000/- for mental agony as well as litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- totaling the claim of Rs.76,533/-.
O.p.s contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that Ion Exchange (India) Ltd is a famous trusted and reputed company in the field of water purifier equipment etc. The complainant purchased a Zero B Emerald R.O. water purifier on 30.05.2012 but after the purchase of the said product the complainant used the same with some wrongful manner. The o.ps provided the proper guidelines to use the said product along with the purchase product but in spite of all, the complainant failed and neglected to follow the same. The o.p.no.2 personally visited the residence of the complainant but the complainant misbehaved with him and did not allow to enter the house of the complainant. The complainant also did not allow the company’s staff to rectify the defects. The complainant for the purpose of having monetary gain filed this case though the o.ps extended the hand of cooperation. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant purchased the water purifier manufactured by o.p.no.1?
- Whether there was any defect in the water purifier purchased by the complainant?
- Whether the o.ps failed and neglected to rectify the defects of the water purifier purchased by the complainant?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a Zero B Emerald R.O. Water purifier equipment on 30.05.2012 at a price of Rs.17,070/-. After purchase the complainant noticed that the said product started to give trouble and reported to the company regarding the problem faced by the complainant. The complainant entered into an AMC for one year commencing from 03.08.2012 to 02.08.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.4,836/-. On the basis of the complaint the o.p. changed the back cabinet on 23.11.2013 In spite of such changing the trouble continued. The complainant further paid AMC for the year 2014-15. Since the month of September,2014 the water purifier was not functioning properly. The complainant requested the o.ps over telephone and e-mail for removing the defect of said product but no action was taken on behalf of the o.ps. The complainant thereafter had to purchase purifier drinking water from the market for which he had to incur expenses of Rs.10,800/-. On the basis of the said fact whenever the complainant noticed that the o.ps were not taking any step the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice on 28.01.2015 but the o.ps did not take any action for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps for replacement of the water purifier and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- and further Rs.50,000/- for mental agony as well as litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- totaling the claim of Rs.76,533/-.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that Ion Exchange (India) Ltd is a famous trusted and reputed company in the field of water purifier equipment etc. The complainant purchased a Zero B Emerald R.O. water purifier on 30.05.2012 but after the purchase of the said product the complainant used the same with some wrongful manner. The o.ps provided the proper guidelines to use the said product along with the purchase product but in spite of all, the complainant failed and neglected to follow the same. The o.p.no.2 personally visited the residence of the complainant but the complainant misbehaved with him and did not allow to enter the house of the complainant. The complainant also did not allow the company’s staff to rectify the defects. The complainant for the purpose of having monetary gain filed this case though the o.ps extended the hand of cooperation. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that complainant purchased one purifier manufactured by o.p.1. The said product was purchased on 30.05.2012 at a price of Rs.17,070/-. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant entered into an AMC with the o.ps. As per the terms and conditions of the AMC it is the duty of the o.ps to provide any assistance if the product is found of having any defect during the continuance of the AMC period. It appears from the record that the complainant whenever made complaint with the o.ps the staff of the o.ps were sent but they were not allowed to inspect the said water purifier. It appears that the complainant lodged the case in the year 2015 after the lapse of several years from the date of purchase. The o.ps claimed that the complainant did not follow the instructions for operation of the water purifier. The complainant has claimed that the product was not functioning and the o,.ps claimed that the complainant did not allow the staff of the o,.ps to rectify the alleged defect. The complainant has not sought for any appointment of an expert for ascertaining the defect in the said purifier. It is an admitted fact that the complainant paid AMC of Rs.4,627/- and Rs.3616/- respectively but he did not avail of any service from the o.ps. In view of such evidence on record we hold that for providing proper relief to the complainant the o.ps should be given direction to refund the amount to the complainant in respect of the amount paid by him.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the CC no.266/2015 is allowed on contest against the o.ps with cost. The o.ps are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,243/- (Rupees eight thousand and two hundred forty-three) only to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
