Complaint presented on : 25.02.2013
Order pronounced on : 06.04.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., : MEMBER II
MONDAY THE 06th DAY OF APRIL 2015
C.C.NO.45/2013
Vaipur Mani,
S/O Dhevar Gupthan,
‘Vaipur Villa’
No.1381 G—19th Street,
Poompuhar Nagar,
Kolathur Post,
Chennai – 600 099.
.. Complainant
..Vs..
| | 1.Eureka Forbes Ltd., New No.M- 73 Old No:M-1, 3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102. 2. Mr. C.Karthik, Senior Customer Sales Specialist, Eureka Forbes Ltd., New No. M-73 Old No:M-1, 3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102. | |
| | | … Opposite parties |
Date of complaint : 01.03.2013
Counsel for Complainant :MR.C.R.Sureshkumar
Counsel for 1st & 2nd Opposite party : M/S K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
THE COMPLANT IN BRIEF:
1. The Complainant purchased a RO Water Purifier for a consideration of Rs.13,990/-(Rupees thirteen thousand nine hundred and ninety only) on 05.06.2012 with a one year warrantee . The 1st free service was attended by the opposite parties technician on 12.10.2012 and he advised some defects. Then the complainant noticed that the unit was not working properly. The complainant made a complaint on 26.10.2012 and the technician attended on 29.10.2012 and advised that the RO Cartridge and Sediment Cartridge are at fault and needs to be replaced. The technician tapped the cartridge and fitted and promising that unit will function. It worked for one day and again unit become defective. The second complaint also attended by technician on 08.11.2012 and again advised for replacement of Cartridges. Even after that unit did not work. The complainant sent representation on 27.11.2012 and reminded on 27.01.2013 to rectify the defects. Though opposite parties received the same neither rectified the defect nor replied for the same. The complainant put to mental agony and hence he filed the complaint to rectify the defect or replace the unit and also to pass an award of compensation of Rs.25, 000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) along with costs of complaint.
WRITTEN VERSION IN BRIEF:
2. The opposite parties submit that the 1st opposite party is a marketer and the 2nd opposite party is a service provider and the manufacturer is not added as a party and on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 2nd opposite party is the employee of the 1st opposite party is no way liable for the allegation made in the complaint. The 1st opposite party installed the RO machine on 05.06.2012 and free service was done on 12.10.2012. The service technicians advised the complainant that the RO Cartridge and Sediment Cartridge were to be replaced and the complainant wanted the same to be replaced on free of cost. However, the technician told that the normal wear and tear items would not be covered under the warranty and the complainant had to bear the cost of the cartridges. Though opposite parties had not replied for the complainant letters, instead they have visited the complainant house and serviced the machine. The problem will arise in the water purifier depends on the usage and contents of water. There is no evidence of deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties and prays to dismiss the complaint.
3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION :
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. To what relief the Complainant is entitled in this complaint?
4.POINT:1
The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased RO Water Purifier from the 1st opposite party for a consideration of Rs.13,990/- and the same was installed on 05.06.2012 and the 2nd opposite party technician attended free service on 12.10.2012 and thereafter again the service technicians attended at the call of the complainant and the technicians advised to change the RO Cartridge and sediment Cartridge, because they are faulty and further those cartridges are not covered under the warranty and the complainant has to bear the cost of the Cartridge and however the complainant demanded to change the same at free of cost.
5. ExA1 & A2 are the receipt and invoice for the purchase of the product by the complainant. Ex A3 to A5 are the representation addressed to the opposite parties acknowledged by them under Ex A4 to A6 respectively. However the opposite parties have not replied for the same and they would state that they have attended the service and advised the complainant to replace the cartridges. Ex B1 is the customer service history and Ex B2 is the warranty. Ex B2 warranty states as follows.
“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 warranty conditions the Cartridges are not covered under warranty is acceptable. However, the warranty did not specify, how many months (minimum months) the Cartridge would be in good condition have not been stated in the warrantee. Further in the 1st free service, within four months from the date of installation of the product itself, the technician advised to replace to cartridges. The complainant did not allege any mechanical defect. Therefore, it establishes that the Cartridge provided in the product itself is defective and therefore the opposite parties are liable to replace new Cartridge and to that extent the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service.
6. The opposite parties contended that the 1st opposite parties is a marketer cum sales of the product and the 2nd opposite party is the service provider and therefore due to non inclusion of the manufacturer, the complaint itself is liable to be dismissed. It is held above that the Cartridges provided in the product only defective. Further the complainant also did not allege any mechanical (motor) defect in the product. Therefore in the circumstances the non jointer of the manufacturer of the product would no way vitiate the complaint. Therefore it is held that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service.
7.POINT :2
As the complainant did not allege or proved that the product is having mechanical defect, he is not entitled for replacement of the product and compensation. Since, it is held above that the Cartridge provided in the product itself is defective, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to change the cartridges including membrane and to service the product at free of cost and handover the product in working condition to the complainant would be the reliefs that are entitled to the complainant as per this complaint.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1&2 are directed jointly or severally to replace the RO Cartridge, Sediment Cartridge and membrane and also service the product at free of cost and handover to the complainant in working condition within a period of 6 weeks from the date of this order and further to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within the above said period.
This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her and corrected and pronounced by me on this 06th day of April 2015.
MEMBER - 11 PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 Dated 05.06.2012 Photocopy of final Receipt of payment
Ex.A2 Dated 05.06.2012 Photocopy of Invoice
Ex.A3 Dated 28.11.2012 Copy of First Complaint Letter
Ex.A4 Dated 30.11.2012 Photocopy of Acknowledgement Card
Ex.A5 Dated 27.01.2013 Copy of Second complaint Letter
Ex.A6 Dated 29.01.2013 Photocopy of Acknowledgement Card
Ex.A7 Dated 29.01.2013 Photocopy of Acknowledgement Card
(Mr.C.Karthick)
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 Dated NIL Aqua Guard – Customer Service History
Ex.B2 Dated NIL Copy of the user manual-Warranty Terms
And conditions
MEMBER – 11 PRESIDENT
