Presented by Sri P.K.Dash, Member:-
The complaint alleges deficiency of service, provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the gist of the complaint described below:-
The Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd RCM World SPL-6 RIICO Growth Center Post Swaroopganj 311025 via Hamirgarh Dist. Bhilwara (Rajasthan) has got it's had office at Bhilwara, deals with different RCM Products. One of its branch office runs in the name and style as “RCM Bazar” at Bargarh.
The Opposite Party is Proprietor having branch code No. 50371 of the RCM Bazar, Bargarh.
On Dt.18/12/2009, the Complainant purchased one RCM Aque Real Water Purifier-Aqua-Real-ZA+B Model from the Opposite Party vide invoice No.16934 Dt.18/12/2009.
The Opposite Party convinced the Complainant to have a Annual maintenance contract with the Opposite Party, by virtue of which all shorts of maintenance and free services of the water purifier was to be provided at its (Complainant's) door step and under the influence of Opposite Party the Complainant entered into the Annual maintenance contract on Dt.23/11/2010, paid consideration amount of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred)only to that effect. Three numbers of service cards were also provided to the Complainant by the Opposite Party and for acknowledgment of providing service the Service Engineer of the Opposite Party is obliged to sign on each service card against every service rendered to the water purifier. As per clause 07(seven) of A.M.C. all electronic parts, motor mechanical parts and consumables except membrane are covered under free repair or replacement. Besides the A.M.C. Card the Opposite Party had also provided another card called “on called service Card “ which is as per clause 10(ten) of the A.M.C. provide additional visit as and when require and on receiving call for complaint against the water purifier. The water purifier then developed a defect of insignificant purification of water and the same is rectified by the Service Engineer of Opposite Party on Dt.20/12/2010 and there after no free service was provided else.
Due to lack of proper periodical maintenance, the water purifier stopped purifying sufficient water on Dt.03/10/2011 and this fact is verbally brought to the notice of the Opposite Party several times, and also got the assurance of the Opposite Party for deputation of Service Engineer to repair the water purifier. The Complainant sent a written complaint on Dt.02/11/2011 to the Opposite Party and the Service Engineer of Opposite Party, on Dt.09/11/2011 came to the destination of the Complainant and without making any check to the purifier, opined to change the membrane and he apprised the matter to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party on Dt.09/11/2011 through a registered letter, insisted the Complainant to purchase a membrane from him. As per the instruction of User's Manual when the TDS level of water gets increase, the membrane should be changed and the Service Engineer of Opposite Party had never checked the TDS level of purified water and with some ulterior motive, and to escape from contractual obligation, the Opposite Party insisted the Complainant to change the membrane which do not covered under replacement or three service. When this fact is explained to the Opposite Party, he assured the Complainant to make necessary arrangement to send the Service Engineer for another inspection of the water purifier but despite several visit by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party never sent the Service Engineer to the house of the Complainant and ultimately on Dt.23/11/2011 he (the Opposite Party) showed his non liability of contractual obligation as the AMC contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party had expired on Dt.22/11/2011.
The Complainant resides in such a locality of the Bargarh town, where contaminated P.H.D. water is the only source of water for which the family members of the Complainant very often affected by viral diseases. He had invested such a huge amount to install the water purifier and due to defect in the purifier and the non attendance of the Service Engineer for repair, he along with his family members suffered like anything.
Such acts of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice and the Complainant prays for a direction by the Forum to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred)only towards payment of consideration for A.M.C., Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only for mental tension and agony and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for damages due to deficiency in service along with interest @ 18%(eighteen percent) per annum till Dt.23/11/2010.
The Complainant in support of his claim relies upon the xerox attested copy of the following documents:-
Invoice No.16934 Dt.18/12/2009.
Annual Maintenance Contract and Bill No.01 Dt.23/11/2010 of R.C.M., Bazar, Bargarh.
Three numbers of Service Cards.
On called service card.
Complainant's letter of request Dt.02/11/2011 addressed to Opposite Party.
Letter of reply from RCM Bazar, Bargarh Dt.09/11/2011.
Cover page and page 08 RCM Aqua Real User Mannual.
IPO No.36G 767130 and 767131 Dt.16/01/2012.
Receiving notice the Opposite Party appeared and filed version through his counsel denying the allegation of deficiency in service to the Complainant in any manner.
The magnetic approach to the case of the Opposite Party discloses that the Complainant purchased the water purifier of the described model from the Opposite Party and also entered into Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with the Opposite Party.
The Opposite Party contends that, the Complainant having no cause of action, absence of specific allegation of deficiency of service against he Opposite Party and barred by limitation, the complaint is not maintainable.
The Opposite Party contends that the Complainant did not respond to the request of the Service Engineer of the Opposite Party as well as the reply letter of Opposite Party Dt.09/11/2011 to change the membrane and due to improper way of use of the water purifier, the membrane has gone wrong and as per clause 07(seven) of the A.M.C. and instruction in User's Manual the membrane is not provided with free service or replacement. Further the Complainant neither allowed the proper inspection of the water purifier nor produce the system before the Opposite Party or obtained a certificate from any competent authority as to defect in water purifier.
Further the Opposite Party contends that, Complainant has neither inducted the manufacturing unit of the water purifier nor any authority of the Fashion Suiting Private Limited as party. Besides the Complainant has not sent duly filled up A.M.C. Terms and Conditions form to the Company for availing service, for which the petition is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party and for violation of terms and condition of the A.M.C.
Further contention of the Opposite Party is that, she is assigned with very limited power and responsibility by her authority to act on its behalf and the claim made against her is not tenable.
Further the Opposite Party specifically denied many allegations like the Complainant had entered A.M.C. contract and paid Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred)only to that effect to the Opposite Party and the Service Engineer had once visited his house in belated time of one month after receiving complaint, and due to lack of periodical maintenance, the water purifier became defective when the system troubled with insignificant purifying of sufficient water and in response to the letter Dt.02/11/2011 of the Complainant, the Service Engineer of the Opposite Party paid a token visit to the house of the Complainant and without checking the water purifier advised the Complainant to change the membrane as per the instruction in the User's manual it is advised to change the water membrane when the TDS level of water increased but the Service Engineer never checked the TDS level with some ulterior motive and the Opposite Party insisted the Complainant to change the membrane to escape from contractual liability and when the Complainant complaint before the Opposite Party about non checking of the purifier system by the Service Engineer the Opposite Party assured the Complainant to sent the Service Engineer on Dt.21/11/2011 and then on Dt.22/11/2011 and when the Service Engineer did not attend the Complainant's water purifier on Dt.22/11/2011 the Complainant went to the Opposite Party on Dt.23/11/2011 to complain again but the Opposite Party expressed his grief and inability to attend the complaint saying the contract was expired on Dt.22/11/2011 which amounts to unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party the Hatpada area where the Complainant resides is supplied with contaminated water and for its consumption the Complainant and his family members very often affected with disease for which the Complainant invested such a huge amount in purchasing the water purifier and entered A.M.C. contract with Opposite Party but due to violation of A.M.C. contract for non availing the service by the Opposite Party, the Complainant sustained both mental and physical pain besides financial loss.
The Opposite Party for its defense relies on the xerox copy of the following documents:-
Agreement between the Opposite Party and Fashion Suiting Pvt. Limited.
T.M.C. Paper.
Letter Dt.09/11/2011.
The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost U/s 26(twenty six) of Consumer Protection Act-1986.
Having gone through the pleading of the Parties, documents filed on behalf of both the Parties, focused on the argument advanced by the Parties, the issues likely to be decided as follows:-
Whether the complaint is maintainable against the Opposite Party ?
Is there any deficiency of service ?
The documents annexed to the case record reveals that invoice Dt.18/09/2009 for purchase of water purifier, money receipt Dt.23/11/2010 for payment of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred)only for Annual Maintenance Contract having not signed by the Opposite Party itself or any authority of Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd do not establish the involvement and acknowledgment of receiving money on both the occasion by the Opposite Party.
Moreover the Annual Maintenance Contract is a bilateral contract between the customer of goods and service with the manufacturing company and the present Opposite Party is not facilitated with any scope or liability for the contractual obligation.
The present Opposite Party has joined the Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd, SPL-6, RIICO Growth Center, Post-Swaroopganj, Dist. Bhilwara (Rajsthan) on Dt.01/09/2011 as per the “agreement with contractor operated RCM Bazar” dated Ist September 2011 entered into between the present Opposite Party and the alleged company i.e. Fashion Suiting Private Ltd. The water purifier is purchased on Dt.18/09/2009, the Annual Maintenance Contract entered into between customer and manufacturing company of the water purifier on Dt.23/11/2010 which are incidence prior to this joining of the Opposite Party at Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd. at Bargarh Branch
As per the agreement Dt.01/09/2011 between the present Opposite Party and the Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd, Bhilwara (Rajsthan), the Opposite Party designated as “Cor” is not vested with any power to indemnify the purchaser of goods and service for its loss against deficiency on behalf of the Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd designated as “Company” except to make invoice, money receipts and custodian of product and property of the company and to indemnify the company of any loss.
It is well evident that neither the manufacturing company of the water purifier nor the authority of Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd with whom the Complainant alleged to have contracted to provide service are not made Parties in this complaint by the Complainant.
From the discussion made above, it is well established that the present Opposite Party is no way responsible or liable for any deficiency of service to the Complainant and the present complaint is not maintainable against the present Opposite Party.
So far second issue is concern, the water purifies is purchased and Annual Maintenance Contract has been entered into by Subash Chandra Pati but he is not the signatory to the Annual Maintenance Contract Dt.23/11/2010, but one Sanjay Kumar Pati has signed the A.M.C. with the manufacturing company which itself creates a doubt on the genuineness of the documents.
As per the User's Manual, the water purifier is provided with complete one year warranty against all sorts of defects and faults accrued to it due to any reason. The water purifier is purchased on Dt.18/12/2009 and to the on called service asked for by the Complainant, the Service Engineer of the water purifier had rectified the defect on Dt.20/12/2010 even if the warranty period of one year had expired
The defect of insignificant purification of water as alleged in the water purifier by the Complainant as on Dt.03/10/2011 which is within one years from the A.M. Contract Dt.23/11/2010 but around one years ten months from the date of purchase of the water purifier, around one years and eleventh month as on Dt.02/11/2011 when the Complainant made written complaint to the Opposite Party. The Service Engineer of the water purifier deputed on Dt.09/11/2011 and pointed out the defect due to fault in water membrane. The User's manual of the water purifier describes the longevity of water membrane in between one to two years and advised to change the water membrane after one year and before two years from the date of use. As per clause-7(seven) of the Annual Maintenance Contract Dt.23/11/2010 all electronics parts including motors are provided under free repair or replacement except water membrane of the purifier. The manufacturing company can not be held responsible for this.
From the discussion made above over the issue No.2(two) it will be illogical to hod deficiency in providing service to the Complainant, hence answer this issue with no deficiency by the present Opposite Party.
- O R D E R -
Considering all the facts, evidence on record, assertion and counter assertions of the Parties the Forum dismiss the complaint with out cost and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
