DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __308_ _ OF ___2015
DATE OF FILING :_2.7.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEME:02.01.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Puneet Khosla , 246, Ghosal Para Road, Manikpur, Harinavi, Kol-148.
O.P/O.Ps : S.K.D Consultancy & Services , P-31 Jadu Colony, Behala, Kolkata – 34.
__________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Setting aside the exparte judgment dated 9.11.2015 passed in this case, the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased by its order dated 27.4.2018 passed in Revision petition no.3896 of 2017 against the order dated 30.10.2017 in FA no.A/1368/2015 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, to remand the case to this Forum with a direction to the O.P to file written statement within 30 days from the date of passing the said order and the District Forum to proceed with the complaint after taking the reply/written version of the O.P on record in accordance with the Law.
Accordingly, the O.P has filed the written version of his statement which is kept in the record. The deck is now clear for passing judgment in the case.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant is a heart patient who fell in the grip of massive heart attack on 15.5.2014. 35% of his heart is dead now. His Doctor advised him to take utmost care of the purity and hardness of the water he used to drink. Accordingly, he got in touch with Advance Research & Testing Laboratory which tested the drinking water of the complainant and gave their view that the said water contained hardness of 400 PPM. They also advised the complainant to get in touch with their
sister concern M/s S.K.D Consultancy and Services which makes arrangement for softening and purifying water. Complainant got in touch with M/s S.K.D Consultancy & Services ( O.P) and the O.P furnished their quotation ,whereby they assured the complainant that they would bring down the hardness level of the water to 5-10PPM , if their multi grade filter was installed by the complainant in his house. The complainant agreed to the proposal of the O.P; he made payment of Rs.70,000/- to the O.P and the O.P also installed the plant in the house of the complainant ,having convinced him that the plant would bring down the hardness level to 5-10 PPM . It was also agreed by the O.P , as goes the averment in the complaint, that the O.P would bear the regeneration charge from time to time. But O.P did never bear such charge and the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.300/- to the employee of the O.P whenever he came to the house of the complainant for regeneration of the plant. It is further averred by the complainant in his petition that the information supplied in the quotation by the O.P was also false and that it was not ever practicable to get hardness level of 5-10 PPM by resin and salt as mentioned in the quotation of the O.P. The O.P has adopted unfair trade practice ; the hardness level of his drinking water is still at 400PPM and that is why, the complainant has filed the instant case, praying for return of the consideration price and payment of compensation for harassment and mental agony. Hence, arises the instant case.
The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is mainly contended that the complainant was required to follow a maintenance regime and servicing scheme for the multi grade filter and softener and that he failed to follow the said maintenance resin properly and, therefore, the hardness level has not been brought down to 5-10 PPM as stated in the quotation paper of the company. It is further submission in the written statement that the complainant has not taken any Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) from the O.P and, therefore, the O.P is not liable to grant any regeneration or maintenance services free of cost to the complainant. According to the O.P, there is no cause of action for bringing the instant case against them by the complainant and that the complaint should ,therefore, be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
A “Proof of Evidence” is filed by the complainant and the same is kept in the record. Written statement filed by the O.P is treated as evidence of the O.P vide their petition dated 9.8.2018. BNAs filed by the parties are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, written version of the statement of the O.P and also the documents on record. Considered all these.
It is all along submitted by the complainant himself that the O.P gave a false assurance to him that the level of hardness of his drinking water would come down to 5-10PPM if the plant of them was installed in his house. He believed in what was submitted by the O.P in their quotation given to the complainant and also paid Rs.70,000/- a considerable sums of money to the O.P in order to get the drinking water purified and free from hardness. But, his purpose was not served. He got his drinking water tested by an Analyzer, viz.”Pro,” a Laboratory affiliated by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) . . The report is submitted on record and it displays that the hardness of drinking water collected on 26.3.2018 was 417.
That apart, it is submitted by the complainant that the information as supplied by the O.P in the quotation is wrong and misguided. According to him, the quotation says that 16kg of salt will be required to keep the plant functioning at the time of regeneration. But according to him, 52 kg of salt is required as per a set formula. The formula runs thus:-
“Quantity of resin for softness:-
OBR (output between Regeneration) x Hardness
55 (Resin Exchange capacity)
= 45Kl x 400PPM
55
= 327 Ltr. ( Quotation says 100 Ltrs).
Salt Requirement :-
Quantity of Resin x 0.16
327 x 0.16 = 52 kg ( quotation say 16 kg).
Pointing out the above defect in the quotation, it is submitted by the complainant himself that he has been misguided by the O.P for the sake of earning profit only and that the consideration price paid by him to the O.P be refunded treating the malafide attempt as deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the O.P has contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The complainant did not follow the norms of maintenance of the plant and, therefore, the plant did not yield the required result. So, according to him, the O.P is not to blame for this thing; it is the complainant who has dug the pit for himself.
It is admitted fact that a plant was installed in the house of the complainant for the purpose of purifying and filtering the drinking water of the complainant. Also admitted is the fact that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- as consideration money to the O.P. The complainant has filed one report of “PRO Analyzer” which is a NABL accredited Laboratory and this report shows that the hardness level of water collected from the house of the complainant on 26.3.2018was 417MG/1. This report has not been contradicted by the O.P. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the O.P that the complainant did not follow the norms of maintenance of the plant properly and, therefore, the desired hardness level was not reached. The O.P has not been able to file the document to show that since after the installation of the plant in the house of the complainant, the desired level of hardness i.e 5-`10PPM was ever reached by them. The burden of proof, in this case, lies upon the O.P and the O.P should have established that the desired
level of hardness was ever achieved at their plant at or around the time the machine was installed in the house of the complainant inasmuch as the plant was under a guarantee period of 12 months for its performance. But not a single scrap of paper has been brought on record by the O.P before the Forum to prove that the desired level of hardness was ever reached at the plant at any point of time.
Let us see now, whether there is any misleading information supplied to the complainant in the quotation of the O.P. In the quotation of the O.P, there is a guarantee for hardness of water. The quotation guarantees hardness of water at 5-10 PPM. It is also provided in the said quotation that 16 kg szalt is required for regeneration of the plant for OBR( Output Between
Regeneration) of 45000 ltr. In a week. Complainant has filed on record one certificate issued by SYN water , an ISO 9001:2015 Certified Company, and this certificate contains a calculation as follows:
Quantity of resin for softner (<5ppm) : OBR (45kl) x hardness(400PPM)
55
= 327 lit
Salt requirement = 327 lit x .16=52kg/Regeneration
The certificate has not been contradicted by the O.P and regards being had to this aspect, we do find that the calculation revealed in the certificate may safely be relied on. The certificate discloses that 52 kg of salt will be required for every regeneration , whereas the quotation supplied by the O.P displays that 16 kg will be required per regeneration. This information regarding requirement of salt per regeneration as supplied in the quotation of the O.P appears to be completely false and misguiding. It is nothing but an attempt on the part of the O.P to mislead the complainant and ,therefore, it is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Regards being had to all these, we are compelled to say that the plant installed by the O.P in the house of the complainant never yielded the result up to the mark as promised in their quotation supplied to the complainant. The quotation of the O.P proves nothing but some false assurance; it is nothing but an attempt to misguide the complainant. There is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the O.P in so far as the installation of plant in the house of the complainant is concerned. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get the relief claimed by him.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P with a cost of Rs.10,000/- .
The O.P is directed to refund the consideration price i.e Rs.70,000/- to the complainant within a month of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant within a month of this order, failing which, the compensation, cost amount and the refund amount will bear interest @8% p.a till full realization thereof.
Needless to mention here that the complainant shall return the plant with all its equipments to the O.P whenever the above payments are made by the O.P to him.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
