Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/409/2016

Giri Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/s.Sampath Kumar and Associates

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

 Date of Complaint Filed  :  07.12.2016

                                                                                    Date of Reservation        : 08.04.2022 

                                                  Date of Order                 : 29.04.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

PRESENT:      TMT. B JIJAA, M.L                                                 : PRESIDENT

                          THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                          THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.409 /2016

FRIDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

Giri Srinivasan,

B-4, Mahaganapathy Flats,

98-B, Ranganathan Cross Street,

Nehru Nagar, Chrompet,

Chennai – 600 044.                                                                                                                               ... Complainant                                                                                                                                     

..Versus..

1.M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited,

   Rep by its Managing Director,

   Water Filter Supplier,

   New No.31, Old No.14, First Floor,

   Burkit Road, T. Nagar,

   Chennai – 600 017.

 

2.M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited,

   Rep by its Managing Director,

   Corporate Office,

   No.88, Anmol Palani, 4^th Floor,

   G.N.Chetty Road, Thiyagaraya Nagar,

   T.Nagar,  Chennai – 600 017.                                                                                                   ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. Sampath Kumar & Associates

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.       The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund a sum of Rs.7,820/- paid by the Complainant towards renewal of AMC with interest @24% p.a together with Rs.200/- per day till the amount is settled, from 19.06.2016 and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with cost.

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

        The  Complainant has been using Aquaguard water filter Manufactured/Distributed/supplied by Opposite Parties for the last five years. He has entered into Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with the Opposite Parties which was renewed on 19.06.2016 for the period upto 18.06.2018 (2 years).      During the subsistence of said Contract, Complainant’s wife found that the filters were leaking inside. The complaint was raised and the service technicians of the Opposite Parties immediately attended the complaint. But the Complainant alleges that the service technician without knowing the knowhow damaged the connector and the pump inside the filter. The Complainant had taken up the said fault to the knowledge of the Area Manager of the Opposite Parties which went in futile. Though the Opposite Parties received Rs.7,820/- towards two years AMC, the Complainant claims that they did not take care to rectify the fault of the machine. In addition to the expenditure that the Complainant is buying water can for Rs.200/- per day which is an avoidable expenditure. The Complainant sent a legal notice on 15.07.2016 demanding the Opposite Parties to settle the Complainant’s account which were duly received and acknowledged by them, but did not care  to reply. Hence this complaint.

3.Written Version of the Opposite Party in Brief:-

        The Opposite Parties submits that this Opposite Parties is not the manufacturer of this product. This Opposite Parties is only a marketer and service provider to the customers. Since the manufacturer of this product is not included as a party in this complaint, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties. The above  complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Complainant has suppressed the material facts before this Hon’ble Commission and came with all sorts of false allegations against the Opposite Parties to defame their repudiation of the company. The Complainant has been using the product of the Opposite parties for more than 5 years and only on the satisfaction of the service provided by the Opposite Parties, he renewed the AMC on 19.06.2016 to 18.06.2018 (for two years). The Complainant AMC was entered on 19.06.2016, on same day the Opposite Parties replaced the entire filters, pre-carbon filter, post carbon filter, sediment cartridge, candle. After the filters were fitted, they observed the leakage in the water purifier and the service technicians of the Opposite Parties immediately attended the complaint. The service technicians rectified the leakage of water from the machine. He found out that the water pump was not working in the machine due to the long time usage of water purifier for the last 5 years. The service technician told that the water Pump is not working well, he will place order with the manufacturing company and replace the Water Pump in 2 to 3 weeks for free of cost. The Complainant was adamantity demanding that the Pump should be replaced immediately.  The Complainant has twisted the facts for his convenience. The Opposite Parties deny the allegations made by the Complainant that the service technicians of the Opposite Parties without knowing the knowhow damaged the connector and the pump inside the filter. It was informed to the Complainant by their service technicians that they will replace the RO pump very soon and the same was agreed by him. But when the service technician of the Opposite Parties went to the house of the Complainant to replace the RO pump, he was not allowed to enter the house by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties submit that a service request was given by the Complainant on 29.12.2016 even after he sent a legal notice. And the service technicians of the Opposite Parties also provided mandatory service on 01.01.2017.  The Opposite Parties Company is always service oriented and the Complainants of the customers will be immediately attended without any delay. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. He is not entitled for any compensation from this Opposite Parties. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The Complainant submitted her Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments.  On the side of the Complainant, documents Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-4 were marked. The Opposite Parties has submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Parties Ex.A1 alone was marked.

4.  Points for Consideration:-

1.Whether the complaint is maintainable against the Opposite Parties?

2.Whether the Opposite Parties committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice?

3.Whether the Complainant is entitled for any other relief?

5.   Point No.1

        The Counsel for the Complainant contended that he had entered into an Annual Maintenance Contract with the Opposite Parties which was renewed on 19.06.2016 for a period of two years that is up to 18.06.2018. On the date of receiving of the Annual Maintenance Contract the filter in the Aqua-Guard found to be leaking and the same was taken to the notice of the Opposite Parties by way of complaint which was not rectified by the Opposite Parties desipte of 3 technicians of the Opposite Parties attended the fault. The Counsel for the Complainant further contended without knowing the knowhow the technicians of the 3^rd Opposite Parties damaged the connector and the pump inside the  filter which was also informed to the Opposite Parties. As the fault could not be rectified by the Opposite Parties which caused the Complainant to spend about Rs.200 per day for buying a water can which is an unavoidable expense. The Opposite Party in their version though has denied the allegations made in the complaint the reasons given for non rectification of the fault during subsistence of the Annual maintenance Contract is not at all acceptable. Further the contention of the Opposite party with regard to the non joinder of the parties does not arise as the Complainant has entered into Annual Maintenance Contract with the Opposite Parties and there is no such claim of manufacturing defect. Hence the Complainant is maintainable as against the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered as against the Opposite Parties.

6.    Point No.2:-

        Though reliance made by the Opposite parties on the Judgment of Our Hon’ble Apex Court in SGS INDIA LTD Vs DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LTD dated 06.10.2021 reported in 2021 SCC online SC 879, the same would not apply to the instant case, as the contentions put forth and reasoning given by the Opposite Parties in respect of non rectification of the fault during the subsistence of AMC and blaming the complainant in their written version for the first time after filing of the complaint is not at all sustainable since the Opposite Parties had not responded to the communication sent by email and the legal notice caused by the Complainant and Ex B-1 cannot be relied upon as the same does not contain any seal and sign of the Opposite parties and counter signature of the Complainant for having attended the Services. Hence, non rectification of the fault by the Opposite Parties during the subsistence of Annual Maintenance Contract clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, Point No.2 is decided in favour of the Complainant.

7. Point No.3

        As far as Point No.3 is concerned, the reliefs sought for by the Complainant are granted in part, hence the complainant is not entitled for any other relief.   

   Hence we are inclined to allow the complaint in part. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.7,820/- paid towards Annual Maintenance Contract with interest @ 9% p.a from 19.06.2016 to the date of this order and also direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of  Rs.3000/- towards cost of the complaint to the Complainant.

        In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Hence, the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,820/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty only) paid towards Annual Maintenance Contract with interest @ 9% p.a from 19.06.2016 to the date of this order and also direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of  Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only)  towards cost of the complaint to the Complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.

In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this 29^th day of April 2022.

 

  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                               PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:

 

Ex.A1	19.06.2016	Annual Maintenance Contract Receipt issued by the Opposite Parties
Ex.A2	02.07.2016	Email sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A3	15.07.2016	Legal notices sent by Complainant’s Counsel to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	-	Two Acknowledgement Cards from the Opposite Parties

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1

-

Computerized Aqua Guard – Customer Service History

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                              PRESIDENT