Complainant Pawan Kumar vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to replace his R.O. with new one. Opposite parties be further directed to make the payment of Rs.60,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment being suffered by him alongwith  Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.

2.          The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a R.O. Xpert of Eureka Forbs on 9.8.2014 against invoice No.R-755 for Rs.19,400/- from the opposite party no.1 of brilliant quality and it is very expensive one than the other R.O.s of other companies.  At the time of purchase of the said R.O. the opposite party no.1 has allured him that in case of any manufacturing defect if so occurred in the said R.O. then the same would be exchanged with new one within the period of one year from the date of purchase which comes under the warranty period and in case of any defect occurred in the same, then they will remove the same free of costs. They further stated that they will also provide three Free Services to him after each four months and the same would be done by the Authorized Technicians of the opposite party no.2. After passing four months, the opposite parties had not provided free service to him as they earlier told him and as such he was compelled to approach the opposite party no.1, but of no avail. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their written version submitting therein that the complainant bought an RO on 9.8.2014 for Rs.19,400/- but there was no misrepresentation or allurement. It was denied that the product sold to the complainant was warranted for one year against any defect in workmanship etc. The opposite parties provides free services and also free repairs and replacement of spares but not consumables like carbon and candle, which was like ink in a printing cartridge and were replaced against payment. There was no free replacement of consumables during the one year warranty period. It was further denied that any complaint was received by the opposite party no.2 and the promised periodical free services had not been provided or not offered.  It was submitted that the complainant was provided in warranty free services in December 2014 and March 2015 but he refused to sign in acknowledgement of the services provided to him. It was further submitted that the complainant was provided free services on 15.6.2015. Since the complainant refused mandatory services offered to him earlier and later, on the ground his machine had no problem and was working fine. Therefore, the opposite parties stand discharged under the contract and can not be accused of any breach of contract. After refusing services, the law of estoppels applies and the complainant can not blow hot and cold, in the same breath. However, the opposite party has always been and still was ready to perform, its part of the contract as and when required by the complainant.  It was also denied that anyone from the opposite party ever said there was any defect in the machine and it was submitted the machine of the complainant is working perfectly and purifying water. There is no documentary evidence on record to prove, the machine had any defect, or the complainant ever sent any complaint in writing as required under the terms of warranty that his machine had any problem or any of his complaints had remained unattended or any promised services had not been provided to him. This makes the present complaint of the complainant false. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.          Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-I along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C2 to Ex C15 and closed the evidence.

5.         On the other hand, Sh.Manoj Kumar Dhiman Supervisor of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.

6.         We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence and other documents as available on the records of the proceedings along with an exhaustive but judicious perusal of the allegations as made out in the body of the complaint in the back drop of the presenting gravity (in the complainants’ prosecution) and the OP’s callous defense. Further, we find that the OP1 vendor has clearly stated/mentioned on the Bill Ex.C4 that the repairs and warranty to the sold products rests with the OP2 service centre and refund/ replacement etc also rests with the OP2 Manufacturer and as such he shall not be held liable for repairs/refund/replacements etc. The OP2 manufacturer has rightly pleaded its ‘refuge’ in the settled principle of ‘repairs’ as first-routine option and ‘refund/ replacement’ as last resort and that too as a compulsive ‘no escape’ choice. No doubt, the complainant has not categorically brought out any ‘inherent manufacturing defect’ but the ‘non-functioning’ of the RO Water Purifier Machine as duly proved by him on record and the ‘non-rectification’ of his complaint for full ‘Twelve’ months are sufficient to call for a justifiable ‘refund’ of its cost price with compensation/interest etc. To top it all, the complainant was repeatedly advised that the Machine is working in right order whereas the ‘TDS’ of the outlet water has been below the ‘requisite’ rating. The RO Water Purifier has since been lying idle with the complainant whereas the OP2 manufacturer has callously filed the lone affidavit Ex.OP1 by its Supervisor Manoj Kumar Dhiman on behalf of the Technician Rohit Kumar that he visited the complainant in December’ 2014 and March’ 2015 but the family members refused to avail of the ‘free-service’ service offer. No specific dates/other evidence of visits have been produced and that turn the proxy ‘deposition’ into bald and ambiguous statements with no evidentiary value. Somehow, the counsel for the OPs has also failed to produce any cogent evidence that the machine has been tampered with besides refusal to ‘free repairs’ etc. We find the OP2 manufacturers have followed ‘unfair trade practice’ and who have also been found ‘deficient in service’ in their dealings with the complainant and thus liable to an adverse award under the Act.     

7.       In the light of the all above, we find and hold the titled OP2 Manufacturing company (and its service centre both guilty of ‘unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service’) and thus partly allowing the present complaint, we ORDER them to refund the full cost price Ex.C4 of the RO Water Purifier in question  to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.5000 as compensation for causing him unnecessary harassment and Rs.2,000/- as cost  within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall further attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid. 

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                     President   

Announced:                                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 24, 2015                                                          Member

*MK*