By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This consumer complaint is filed alleging that the Complainant visited the shop of the 1^st Opposite Party on 20.09.20219 to purchase a water purifier to be installed at her residence.  Before selecting the water purifier, the Complainant sought for the opinion of the 1^st Opposite Party since the Complainant had not used the water purifier earlier.  The 1^st Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the best water purifier available in the market is “Kent Grand Mineral RO”.  Accordingly the Complainant purchased the same from the 1^st Opposite Party after paying Rs.16,700/-.  At the time of purchase the 1^st Opposite Party assured that if there is any defect for the water purifier during the warranty period, the Company will either repair the same or replace the defective one with a new water purifier if the same could not be repaired.

            2.  The machine was found to be defective after a few days of installation.  The Complainant noticed that instead of purified water, only waste water is coming from the machine and the same was informed to the 1^st Opposite Party.  A representative of the Company came and repaired the water purifier and told that the defect is cured.  Even after the repair, since the unit was not working properly, the Complainant again informed the 1^st Opposite Party and the machine was again repaired.   But the effort taken has not become fruitful.  During the 1^st week of December 2019, the authorized technician of the Opposite Party incepted the machine and informed the Complainant that the defect could be rectified if an additional pre-filter is attached which was also purchased by the Complainant by paying Rs.1,500/- but the defect was continued.  At last, the technician told the Complainant that the water purifier has manufacturing defect and the same cannot be repaired at all.  The Complainant demanded the 1^st Opposite Party to replace the defective machine since the warranty period was not over and the 1^st Opposite Party promised to do the same.  But the 1^st Opposite Party somehow or other delayed the replacement by saying lame excuses. Hence the complaint for directing the Opposite Parties

            1) to replace the defective water purifier with a new one

            2) to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation

            3) to grant Rs.5,000/- towards cost of proceedings.

            3.  Both 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed their version in the case.  1^st Opposite Party in his version stated that the Complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of 1^st Opposite Party who is the dealer.  2^nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the Kent Grand Mineral RO Water Purifier and the Complainant had purchased the said product on 20.09.2019 as per the Invoice No.836.  The allegation  that the opinion of the 1^st Opposite Party is sought for and the assurance for replacement of product on any defect etc are denied by the 1^st Opposite Party.  The allegation regarding the defect of the product and the repair made etc are also not known to the 1^st Opposite Party.  It is also stated in the version that the 1^st Opposite Party is not liable for the after sale service of the product.  Being the authorized dealer, the only role of the 1^st Opposite Party is to sell the product and 1^st Opposite Party is not liable for the manufacturing defect if any of the product. The installation is also done by the authorized technician of the manufacturer and it is found that the technician had made all the technical support and installed the product and is working properly.  1^st Opposite Party is not a necessary party and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

            4.  The 2^nd Opposite Party filed their version through Mr. Sumesh. V. V, the Service Officer by authorization stating that the 2^nd Opposite Party is a stranger to the transaction between the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party.  It is stated in the version that on getting notice from the Forum,  2^nd Opposite Party deputed the Service Manager to meet the Complainant.  Thus the Service Manager met the Complainant on 24.02.2023 and offered replacement of the disputed RO and to close the case but the Complainant refused the offer.  The offer was also conveyed through a letter dated 25.02.2020 by speed post and hence prayed for an order for replacement of the disputed purifier and to close the complaint to redress the grievances of the Complainant.

            5.  Husband of the Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked.  From the side of the Opposite Parties, the area Service Manager of the 2^nd Opposite Party was examined as OPW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked.

            6.  The following questions are coming up for consideration:-

                        (1).     Whether the Complainant has sustained to any deficiency of

                               service or unfair trade practice from the Opposite Parties?.

                        (2).  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any compensation

         and if so, the quantum of compensation.

(3). Whether the Complainant is entitled to cost of the

     proceedings?.

            7.  The Commission considered the matter in detail.  The specific case of the Complainant is that within few days of installation of the product, the water purifier was found to be defective.  Even though it is repaired by the authorized technician of the 2^nd Opposite Party, as suggested by him, the same defect persisted.  Since the defect was found within the warranty period, the Complainant demanded for the replacement of the water purifier which was not done by the Opposite Parties and hence the complaint is filed for issuing direction to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

            8.  In the version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party it is stated that they are ready to replace the product and the same was done by Opposite Party No.2 replacing the defective product with the advanced version of the water purifier during the pendency of the complaint.

            9.  During the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the Complainant is not seeking any relief against the 1^st Opposite Party.  OPW1 also admitted that there is no deficiency of service from the side of the 1^st Opposite Party and 2^nd Opposite Party is ready to compensate if the Commission finds that there is deficiency of service.

            10.  From the records and evidences it is seen that the product purchased by the Complainant was defective and hence the same is replaced by the 2^nd Opposite Party.  Hence the Commission is of the opinion that the Complainant has proved his case and hence the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the loss sustained to the Complainant.

            11.  The 1^st prayer in the complaint has not been considered by the Commission since the grievance already been redressed.

            12.  Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced in the case and after hearing the Parties, the following orders are issued:-

                        1).  An amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) shall be

      paid to the Complainant as compensation by the 2^nd Opposite

      Party.

                        2). An amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) shall

      be paid as cost of the proceedings by the 2^nd Opposite Party.

            Needless to say that the above said amounts to be paid within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order otherwise shall attract interest  @ 6% from the date of order till the date of realization.

            C.C.16/2020 is allowed accordingly.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of April 2023.

Date of Filing:-20.01.2020.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              George. K. R.                                   Tailor.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Akhil. B.                                             ASM.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Authorization Letter.                    Dt:17.01.2022.

A2.                  Bill of Supply.                                  Dt:20.09.2019.

A3.                  Tax Invoice.                         

A4.                  Instruction Handbook for installation, Operation and

Maintenance.

A5.                  Warranty Card.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

B1.                  Copy of Authorisation Letter.                             Dt:18.08.2022.

B2.                  Copy of Legal Notice.                                            Dt:06.03.2020.

B3.                  Copy of Letter.                                                        Dt:25.02.2020.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.