BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.671 of 2014

Date of Institution: 19.12.2014

Date of Decision: 25.06.2015 

Sh.Prable Vir Sood son of Sh.Om Parkash Sood, resident of 15/3, College Lane, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s.Kent R.O. System Limited, through its officiating Incharge/ Person over All Inchage, A-2, Sector 59, Noida, UP.
2. M/s.Nirmal T.V. Centre, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Manager/ Person over All Incharge. 

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.S.S.Batra, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Suraj Verma, representative of Opposite Party No.1.

             For the Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Prable Vir Sood under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he purchased one water purifying system i.e. Kent R.O. from Opposite Party No.2, who is authorized dealer of  Opposite Party No.1, vide invoice No. 1576/KR 130810859 dated 20.11.2013. Complainant alleges that within a very short period of about 10 days, the said RO System started giving some trouble and in this regard, the complainant lodged a complaint on 30.11.2013 to Opposite Party No.1 and accordingly, the authorised dealer  i.e. Gautam Sales Agency, Chattiwind Road, Amritsar came to the residence of the complainant and temporarily started the RO system of the complainant, whereas the complainant was not satisfied from the service of said  service dealer and the RO System of the complainant again created problem after few days and became dead. The complainant again and again lodged complaints with the Opposite Parties  and the service dealer of Opposite Party No.1  came and started the RO System temporarily and at last the complaint was lodged on 10.10.2014 to Opposite Party No.2 and till date, the complainant has lodged 11 complaints to the Opposite Parties  on different dates i.e. 30.11.2013, 18.12.2013, 29.12.2013, 8.1.2014, 21.2.2014, 10.3.2014, 12.3.2014, 29.4.2014, 25.6.2014 and 10.10.2014, but all in vain. On visit of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 also assured the complainant that some engineer/ mechanic will visit the premises of the complainant and will remove all the problems of RO system of the complainant, but all in vain. Besides the aforementioned written complains, the complainant also served legal notice dated 11.11.2014 to the Opposite Parties, but they failed to comply with the said legal notice. The RO system in question is having inherent and manufacturing defect since the inception of purchase and even the false assurances regarding rectification of defects were given by Opposite Parties  and as such, all these acts tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade  practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties either to replace the said RO System with new one or to refund the amount of the said RO. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the service provider after receipt of legal notice  from the complainant visited the premises of the complainant on 10.12.2014 and carried out maintenance service of the RO System to the satisfaction of the complainant and now the water purifier is functioning well to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The present complaint is being pursued with ill intention to claim exorbitant compensation and the Opposite Party No.1 is included as party without giving any information about his grievances whatsoever. The complainant never informed about his grievance to the manufacturer prior to filing of the complaint. No legal notice as alleged has been served upon the manufacturer. The complainant has purchased the disputed RO System from Opposite Party No.2 on 20.11.2013 and the present  complaint has been filed by the complainant  in the month of December, 2014 after the end of the warranty period. As per the available record and information available with Opposite Party No.1 that during the tenure of 12 months, 6 free services have been provide to the complainant during warranty period. It transpires that on each and every time, the services have been provided to the complainant to resolve the issues. The machine of the RO System of the complainant is functioning well, but with an ulterior intention to get replacement and compensation, the complainant has filed this complaint. After receipt of the legal notice from the complainant, the service provider has thoroughly checked the purifier and necessary spares replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant on 10.12.2014. So, there is no deficiency and manufacturing defect in the machine. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, so Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.1.2015 of this Forum.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Suraj Verma, Service Officer Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/7  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant purchased one water purifying system i.e. Kent R.O. from Opposite Party No.2, vide invoice dated 20.11.2013 Ex.C6 for a sum of Rs.14,800/- with one year warranty/ guarantee on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. The complainant submitted that within  10 days from the date of purchase of the aforesaid RO System, it started giving some trouble and the complainant lodged a complaint on 30.11.2013 to Opposite Party No.1. Resultantly, the mechanic from  authorised dealer  i.e. Gautam Sales Agency, Chattiwind Road, Amritsar came to the residence of the complainant and temporarily started the RO system of the complainant, whereas the complainant was not satisfied from the service of said  service dealer and the RO System of the complainant again started giving problem after few days, rather it became dead. The complainant lodged so many complaints with Opposite Party No.2 i.e.  30.11.2013, 18.12.2013, 29.12.2013, 08.01.2014, 21.02.2014, 10.03.2014, 12.03.2014, 29.04.2014, 25.06.2014 and lastly on 10.10.2014, but all in vain. Apart from this, the complainant himself visited  Opposite Party No.2, but no engineer/ mechanic came to the premises of the complainant to rectify the defects in the RO system.  The complainant also served legal notice dated 11.11.2014  Ex.C2 through registered post, the postal receipts of which are Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, but inspite of that, the Opposite Parties  did not repair the RO System nor replace the same. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.1 is that on receipt of the  legal notice  from the complainant, the service provider of the Opposite Parties   visited the premises of the complainant on 10.12.2014 and carried out maintenance service of the RO System to the satisfaction of the complainant and now the water purifier is functioning well to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant never brought  to the notice of  Opposite Party No.1 (manufacturer) about any grievance/ complaint, rather he lodged the complaints with authorised  dealer and availed free services. Now at the end  of warranty period by filing the present complaint, the complainant wants to harass the Opposite Parties to extort exorbitant compensation, etc. There is no manufacturing defect in the  in the RO system sold to the complainant   because on each and every time, the service provider of Opposite Party No.1 has provided services and replaced the minor parts as per the demand and satisfaction of the complainant. As per the available record with Opposite Party No.1, during this tenure of 12 months, following free services have been provided to the complainant during the warranty period.
   1. 20.11.2013- Machine was installed.
   2. 21.11.2013- Pre filter Hanging/ resolved.
   3. 13.12.2013- No output water/ resolved.
   4. 14.12.2013- Machine not working/ resolved.
   5. 02.05.2014- Maintenance Service provided.
   6. 13.10.2014- Machine not working/ resolved. 

So, from the above, it transpires that each and every time, the services have been provided to the complainant to resolve the issues. As such, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 qua the complainant. 

9. It may be mentioned that Sh.Munish Gulati, Manager of Opposite Party No.2 filed an affidavit Ex.C9 to prove that the complainant lodged so many complaints  about problem in Kent RO system purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.2 and he referred the complaints to authorised service centre i.e. Gautam Sales Agency, Amritsar, but the complainant was not satisfied and he repeatedly made complaints about the non functioning of the RO system and that service centre of Opposite Party No.1 failed to resolve the problem in the Kent RO system of the complainant. This witness also proved the list of complaints made by the complainant which are mentioned on document Ex.C7.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Kent RO system from Opposite Party No.2 on 20.11.2013 Ex.C6 for a sum of Rs.14,800/-, but the said Kent RO system did not work properly, rather it became dead. The complainant lodged so many complaints with Opposite Party No.2 which are mentioned on list of complaints Ex.C7 duly certified by Opposite Party No.2 and proved by Sh.Munish Gulati, Manager of Opposite Party No.2. Not only this, Opposite Party No.1 has also proved on record the complaints lodged by the complainant regarding the non proper functioning of the Kent RO system purchased by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.2 which were duly forwarded to the authorised service centre of Opposite Party No.1 Gautam Sales Agency, Amritsar. Said complaints are Ex.OP1/2, Ex.OP1/3, Ex.OP1/4, Ex.OP1/5, Ex.OP1/6 and Ex.OP1/7 which fully proves that during the period of one year of warranty, said Kent RO system became dead about 11 times and the complainant had to approach the dealer as well as service centre of Opposite Party No.1 for its repair/ rectification of the problem as is evident from the list of complaints Ex.C7 as well as job sheets produced by  the Opposite Party No.1 as Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/7 which fully proves that instead  a product for convenience, such Kent RO system purchased by the complainant has become a headache for the complainant. The record produced by the complainant i.e. Ex.C7 complaints lodged by the complainant regarding Kent RO system, with Opposite Party No.2 and duly admitted by Sh.Munish Gulati, Manager of Opposite Party No.2 through his affidavit Ex.C9 as well as job sheets/ complaints produced by the Opposite Party No.1 from their service centre regarding  the Kent RO system of the complainant Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/7 fully proves that Kent RO system of the complainant did not work properly for even one month which proves that Kent RO system is not working properly and it is beyond repair and as such, it requires replacement.
11. Consequently, we allow the complaint of the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to replace the said Kent RO system of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the amount of the Kent RO system i.e. Rs.14,800/- to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Kent RO system i.e. Rs.14,800/-, from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 25-06-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member