Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

62/2011

S.Kalanidhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.S.Saravanan - Opp.Party(s)

Kathiravan

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  12.01.2011

                                                                        Date of Order :  02.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

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

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.62/2011

WEDNESDAY THIS 2^ND  DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

S. Kalanidhi,

No.7/B, 1^st Cross Street,

Mylai Karpagambal Nagar,

Madipakkam,

Chennai 600 091.                                        .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

S.S. Saravanan,

The Branch Manager,

M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited,

No.16, 12^th Cross Street,

Dhandeeswaran Nagar,

Velachery, Chennai 600 042.                   .. Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. S. Kathiravan  

Counsel for opposite party       :    M/s. K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant.

 

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

         The complainant submit that he had purchased Aquaguard water Purification system on 14.4.2010 for a sum of Rs.9490/-.   On 15.4.2010 the  Aquaguard Water Purification System was duly delivered.  After within 15 days the said system was not functioning properly.   The said fact was informed to the opposite party and was duly serviced.   The complainant further contended that thereafter within 15 days Aquaguard Water Purification System  supplied by the opposite party did not function.    The service centre was duly informed and attended by the Service Engineer, after examining the Aquaguard Water Purification System  told that one Major part is failed in function and it should be replaced and its cost amount is Rs.2500/-, there is no replacement for such a part and cost of the spares to be borne by the complainant.  The opposite party failed to come forward to rectify the defects.    As such the act of the opposite party clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

        The opposite party state that the opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party submit that the  machine was working in good condition at the time of installation.   The service personnel of the opposite party had attended the complaint and he had done the service within the reasonable time.   The service engineers are trained in such a manner to meet the grievance of the customers in an efficient and polite manner.    The usual TDs levels in those areas are more than 2900.  But the Aqua guard total Reviva Water Purification system purchased by the complainant has capacity to dissolve the TDS level from 500-1500.  This was explained to the complainant clearly at the time of installation and advised him to have one additional pre-filter catridge which dissolves the TDS upto 3000.   The opposite party further submit that their service persons attended the complaint calls made by the complainant on 8.7.201, 20.4.2011, 7.2.2011, 5.8.2011, 7.7.2011, 6.12.2011, proved the Mandatory Service to the complainant’s machine on various dates 25.6.2011, 11.9.2011, 17.4.2012 and also they replaced the Filter Cartridge under the Annual Maintenance contract on 1.7.2011 and also replaced the Filter Cartridge on 9.9.2012 even after he filed the complaint.   There is no default on the part of the opposite party and no manufacturing defect on machine Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party  filed and Ex.B1  marked on the side of the opposite party.  

 

4.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused by the opposite party with cost as prayed for ?

5.      ON POINT :-

         Heard both sides.  Perused the records.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that on 14.4.2010 the complainant purchased Aquaguard Water Purification System  for a sum of Rs.9490/- as per Ex.A3.   On 15.4.2010 the said system of Aquaguard Water Purification System was duly delivered and duly installed.   Thereafter within 15 days the said system was not functioned properly.   The said fact was informed to the opposite party and was duly serviced.   Thereafter once again 15 days later the Aquaguard Water Purification System supplied by the opposite party not functioned.   The service centre was duly informed and attended by the Service Engineer.  After examining the Aquaguard Water Purification System he told that one Major part is failed in function and it should be replaced and its cost amount is Rs.2500/-. The complainant was upset and felt that the opposite party is practicing unfair trade practice by way of supplying improper system which is defective within a short period under warranty.   The opposite party failed and neglected to come forward to rectify the defects by replacing the part without taking into consideration of the warranty. Hence the complainant was constrained to issue notice Ex.A1 which was duly acknowledged by the opposite party. Since the opposite party failed to comply the request made in and has not come forward to give reply to the notice, the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party resulting in mental agony with cost.

 

6.       The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the Aquaguard Water Purification System  purchased by the complainant as per Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 will purify only water it shall not remove the hardness of the water and uncondensed  etc.   The water used by the complainant is very hard and the Aquaguard Water Purification System installed is not applicable and have not functioned properly.   The learned counsel  for the opposite party further contended that  the machine purchased by the complainant will purify only 500-1500 TDS level.   But the complainant using water in the area is more than 2900 TDS level.  So the machine purchased by the complainant is going on defective and not functioning.   Even though the opposite party, duly serviced the machine and advised to fix one additional pre Filter Cartridge; the complainant has not agreed for fixing pre filter cartridge.   The complainant requested the opposite party to fix the pre filter cartridge at free of cost.  Ex.A6 warranty never permits to extend it for additional cartridge much less pre filter cartridge.  But on a careful perusal of the entire records and the contentions of both parties, it is very clear that the opposite party knowing fully well about the hardness of the water above 2900 TDS level administrated and supplied the  Aquaguard Water Purification System of Ex.A3 type clearly proves the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the details of service extended to the complainant is marked as Ex.B1.   But it is very clear that Ex.B1 is the computer copy  not signed by the complainant and the counterfoil of the original service book details has not been produced; establishes gross deficiency of service within the warranty period.    Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony is baseless and exorbitant.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party is directed to replace the Aquaguard Water Purification System with new one of similar model  and also pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- with cost of Rs.5000/- and the point is answered accordingly.

        In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party is directed to replace the Aquaguard Water Purification System with new one of similar model  and also pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) for mental agony with cost of Rs.5000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the 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 Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  2^nd   day  of  August 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1. 11.10.2010          - Copy of Complaint letter.

Ex.A2- 12.10.2010         - Copy of Acknowledgment.

Ex.A3- 14.4.2010  - Copy of Receipt for the payment.

Ex.A4- 15.4.2010  - Copy of delivery Challan. 

Ex.A5-         -        - Copy of User Manual.

Ex.A6-         -        - Copy of Warranty card.

 

Opposite party’s side document: -   

 

Ex.B1-         -        - Copy of Aqua Guard – Computer generated customer

                              Service history of the opposite party.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.