Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/428/2014

M/s. Dr.S.Kalpana Radhakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.R.Hemanth Kumar. - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

08 Aug 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 11.06.2014

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 08.08.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.428/2014

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 08^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

                                 

Dr. S. Kalpana Radhakrishnan,

D/o. Dr. M. Sivalingam,

9032 TVH Lumbini Square,

No.127 A, Bricklin Road,

Purasaiwalkam,

Chennai – 600 007.                                                         .. Complainant.                                       

 

 

                                                                                                ..Versus..

 

1. Eureka Forbes,

Represented by Mr. R. Hemanth Kumar,

Assistant Officer,

Customer Service,

Complaint’s Management,

Anmol Palani, Block Nos.C & D5,

Level – IV No.88, G.N. Chetty Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

2. Mr. Aslam Karmali,

CEO,

Eureka Forbes,

B1/B2, No.701, 7^th Floor,

Marathon-Nextgen,

Marathon Innova;

Off Ganapat Rao,

Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,

Mumbai – 400 013.

 

3. Mr. Marzin R. Shroff,

CEO,

Eureka Forbes,

B1/B2, No.701, 7^th Floor,

Marathon-Nextgen,

Marathon Innova;

Off Ganapat Rao,

Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,

Mumbai – 400 013.

 

4. Mr. Sritharan,

Sales Person No.025347,

Anmol Palani, Block Nos.C & D5,

Level – IV No.88, G.N. Chetty Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

5. Mr. Saravanan,

Service Manager,

Aqua Guard,

Anmol Palani, Block Nos.C & D5,

Level – IV No.88, G.N. Chetty Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant                               : Party in person                    

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 5 : M/s. K. Subbu Ranga 

                                                                  Bharathi & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 5 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of 1,00,000/- towards damages for wooden flooring, skirting, painting hall and bedrooms, microwave, carpet, door mat, books including internet and phone calls, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, irritation, loss of peace etc with cost to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he purchased an Aqua Guard RO water purifier namely; ‘AG TOTAL ENHANCE RO 1225207436024884’ for a sum of Rs.14,490/- on 17.08.2013.   The complainant states that at the time of installation, the opposite party explained how to use the machine.  According to instruction manual, the complainant also done the same without any default.  The opposite parties never instructed to close the valve when not in use.  It is not stated anything about the pressure valves in the user manual also.  The sale persons or installation technicians never checked the pressure valve and installed the machine and instructed to fix pressure value at the time of installation or at the time of service.    The service person also not checked the water pressure valve.   The leakage of water resulted the damages and then, the pressure valve was checked by the service persons.   For the second time, within 5 months of leakage when the machine stopped function, the complainant lodged a complaint dated:24.02.2014, for which, there is no proper response.   Even after repeated requests and demands repair was done only on 07.03.2014 i.e. after 13 days.  The complainant submits that due to the leakage, there was a huge damage caused to the wooden flooring, skirting, painting in the bedroom, damage to the microwave, carpet, books, door mats etc to the tune of Rs.70,000/-.  The complainant submits that the pressure reducing valve and its necessity has not been raised at any point of time by the opposite parties while purchasing or installation or even after two services.   The act of the opposite parties 1 to 5 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.    Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 to 5 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 to 5 specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 to 5 state that the complainant purchased an Aqua Guard Total Enhance RO and was installed on 22.08.2013. The said Aqua Guard was functioned properly till 09.10.2013.  The complainant is living in a high rise building with 18 floors causing the pipeline having a pressure of 7.0 kg/cm which is far excess of the normal pressure of 02kg/cm square, it was therefore advised to the complainant to fit the system equipped with a pressure reducer valve and she has to pay the cost for the pressure reducer valve.   The diverter valve was left open during when she visit overseas which resulted in excess water pressure running through the pipeline which caused leakages.  The said fact was explained to the complainant at the time of installation.  But the complainant wants everything at free of cost and she demanded for the pressure reducer valve at free of cost.  The requirement of pressure reducer valve is also mentioned in the User Manual.    After the use of Aqua Guard, the tap connection valve should be closed. But the complainant left the valve opened for a long period due to carelessness resulting high pressure in the pipe line.  Thereby, there was a leakage of water spread all over the house caused the damage for which, the opposite parties are not liable.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 5 and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 5.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for wooden flooring, skirting, painting hall and bedrooms, microwave, carpet, door mat, books including internet and phone calls as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, irritation, loss of peace etc with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Heard their respective Counsels also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased an Aqua Guard RO water purifier namely; AG TOTAL ENHANCE RO 1225207436024884 as stated in the Description of Goods in Ex.A2 for a sum of Rs.14,490/- on 17.08.2013.   The complainant contended that at the time of installation, the opposite party explained how to use the machine.  According to instruction manual, the complainant also done the same without any default.  The opposite parties never instructed to close the valve when it is not in use.  The copy of manual, Ex.A7 does not say anything about the pressure valves.  Neither the sale persons nor installation technicians checked the pressure valve and installed the machine and instructed to fix pressure value at the time of installation or at the time of service.  Ex.A5 & Ex.A6 are the service reports also absolutely silent regarding the checking of pressure valve and installation of pressure valve.  The service person also not checked the water pressure.   Only after leakage resulting the damages the pressure valve was checked by the service persons.   Further the contention of the complainant is that for the second time, within 5 months of leakage when the machine stopped functioning, the complainant lodged a complaint dated:24.02.2014, for which, there is no proper response.   Even after repeated requests and demands repair was done only on 07.03.2014 i.e. 13 days later proves the deficiency in service.  Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the leakage, there was a huge damage caused to the wooden flooring skirting, painting in the bedroom damaged to the microwave, carpet, books, door mats etc to the tune of Rs.70,000/-.  But the complainant has not produced any document.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the pressure reducing valve and its necessity has not  been raised at any point of time by the opposite parties while purchasing or installation or even after two services.  At long last, while claiming damages raising such imaginary contentions amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 5 would contend that the complainant purchased an Aqua Guard Total Enhance RO and was installed on 22.08.2013. The said Aqua Guard was functioned properly till 09.10.2013.  The complainant is living in a high rise building with 18 floors causing the pipeline having a pressure of 7.0 kg/cm.  The said fact was explained to the complainant at the time of installation but has not administered the pressure valve amounts to deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is that the complainant deliberately has not fixed any valve reducer for which, the complainant miserable failed to pay also.  After the use of Aqua Guard, the tap connection valve should be closed.   But the complainant left the valve opened for a long period due to carelessness resulting high pressure in the pipe line.  Thereby, there was a leakage of water spread all over the house caused the damage for which, the opposite parties are not liable.   But on a careful perusal of the warranty card and installation manual, there is nothing about the closure of valve. The pressure reducing valve noticed in the instruction manual has not been explained from the inception to till the filing of the case also amounts to deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for damages and mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 08^th day of August 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	20.08.2013	Copy of final receipt – 292 issued by Eureka Forbes Limited signed by P. Sritharan, Sales Person for cheque No.052537, Canara Bank for Rs.14,490/-
Ex.A2	17.08.2013	Copy of bill, invoice No.7413101255 order No.292025347 dated:17.08.2013 customer ID 1010530147
Ex.A3	17.08.2013	DHL copy of goods sent – AG total enhance RO – 25207436024884
Ex.A4	28.09.2013	Copy of letter sent to the Manager, Pallavaram Office, Chennai with acknowledgement
Ex.A5	23.09.2013	Copy of service request activity report number 1458 by Mr. Robin, Damaged flooring and kitchen cupboards has been mentioned
Ex.A6	28.12.2013	Copy of service request activity report number 1455 dated:28.12.2013 by Mr. Robin. Pressure not checked inspite of past history of leak
Ex.A7		Copy of page nos.10 & 11 in the instruction manual
Ex.A8		Copies of e-mail exchanges
Ex.A9		Photos depicting damage
Ex.A10	24.04.2014 & 09.05.2014	Copy of Service Request Activity Report
Ex.A11		Copy of note taken by the complainant regarding the purchase of Aqua Guard
Ex.A12		Copy of note taken by the complainant regarding the purchase of Aqua Guard
Ex.A13		Copy of note taken by the complainant regarding the purchase of Aqua Guard

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 TO 5 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1		Copy of the user manual – Warranty terms and conditions
Ex.B2		Copy of Service history card of the water purifier

 

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT