DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.207 of 15-05-2013

Decided on 26-09-2013

Gurbachan Singh Bhasin aged about 85 years S/o Jodh Singh R/o Khadar Bhandar Wali Gali, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Tele Purifier Systems near Ajit Road Chowk, St.No.20, Ajit Road, Bathinda, through its proprietor/partner.

2.Kent RO Systems Ltd., Unit 2, Khasra No.93, Village Banta Kheri, Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar, Uttrakhand-247 668, through its M.D/CMD/Chairman/GM/President.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.J.S Walia, counsel for opposite party No.1.

Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one Kent RO system vide invoice No.3899 on dated 30.5.2012 for Rs.15,700/- with one year warranty for all types of defects under the influence of the opposite party No.1 being the best product of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 told the complainant that if there would be any manufacturing defect in the said RO system, the same would be replaced. The RO system installed by the opposite parties is not working properly as there is manufacturing defect in it. The insects and ants used to enter in the said RO system as there was a gap in its joint and it was unable to filter the water as committed by the opposite parties. The complainant has made many complaints to Sh.Man Singh, Area Manager on his mobile as well as on landline, all the times he promised that he would install the new RO system in place of old one as old RO system is having many defects but despite that he is not providing the new RO system. In March 2013, the complainant met with an accident and while going to Ludhiana for the treatment, he received the telephone from Sh.Man Singh that he would send his man to install the new RO system on coming back of the complainant from the hospital but till date none visited to his house. Mr.Varesh Gupta approached the shop of the opposite party No.1 and requested it to accede to the demand of the complainant and further requested Sh.Man Singh, Area Manager to do the needful but the opposite party No.1 did not listen to him and convey him that they will not replace the said RO system. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties either to replace the old RO system with new one or to refund its price alongwith interest, cost and compensation.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and admitted the purchase of the abovesaid Kent RO system. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for the purchase of the said RO system with pre-determined mind, it explained its all the functions, features and qualities to the complainant and he after being fully satisfied with the same, purchased the said RO system as per his own choice. The warranty of one year has been given on the said RO system on behalf of the opposite party No.2 but no assurance was given by the opposite party No.1 to replace the said RO system in case of any defect as alleged by the complainant. The said RO system was got installed by the opposite party No.1 from Jatinder Kumar, Serviceman and it was working properly after installation, the complainant was fully satisfied with its working. There is no manufacturing defect in the said RO system and no insects or ants can enter in it. There is no gap in the joint of the RO system and the same is able to filter the water properly. The RO system was working properly at the time of installation and thereafter the opposite party No.1 provided free service through Mr.Ranjeet on 16.8.2012 and again on 10.11.2012, both the time, the said RO system was found running properly and there was no complaint regarding its functioning. The opposite party No.1 denied that the complainant was told by Sh.Man Singh, Area Manager that he would send his men for the installation of the new RO system, rather the opposite party No.1 sent its serviceman Mr.Jatinder Kumar for the service of the said RO system in the month of March, 2013 but however none was present at house, it was locked and on enquiry, the serviceman came to know that the complainant met with an accident. Mr.Jatinder Kumar informed the service head of the opposite party No.1 namely Balbir Singh about the same, he gave the remarks in this regard in the service card. Thereafter on 3.5.2013, the opposite party No.1 sent Mr.Jatinder Kumar to service the said RO system but the complainant refused to allow him to provide service to the said RO system and proclaimed that he wants new RO system against the old RO system, Mr.Jatinder Kumar also informed Balbir Singh, Head about the same, he gave remarks in this regard in the service card. There is absolutely no defect in the said RO system, rather the same was working properly. The opposite party No.1 denied that Mr.Varesh Gupta visited its shop as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party No.1 is still ready to get the said RO system checked and to provide the necessary service to the same in case of any problem in the functioning of the said RO system The said RO system is properly purifying the water. Thus there is no question of replacement of the said RO system.

3. The opposite party No.2 despite service of summons has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.2.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant has purchased a Kent RO system vide invoice No.3899 on dated 30.5.2012 for Rs.15,700/- from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by the opposite party No.2 with one year warranty.

7. The disputed facts are that the said RO system was not working properly, the insects and ants used to enter in it as there is a gap in its joint and it was unable to filter the water as committed by the opposite parties due to some manufacturing defects in it. The complainant has made various complaints to Sh.Man Singh, Area Manager on his mobile as well as on landline. Sh.Man Singh promised the complainant to install the new RO system in place of old one as the old RO system was having some defect in it. In March 2013, the complainant met with an accident and was going to Ludhiana for the treatment, he received the telephone from Sh.Man Singh, Area Manager that he would send his man to install the new RO system on coming back of the complainant from the hospital but till date none visited to his house. Mr.Varesh Gupta visited the shop of the opposite party No.1 and requested it to do needful but till date nothing has been done.

8. On the other hand, the submission of the opposite party No.1 is that the said RO system is working properly and there is no defect in it. The free services are got provided by the opposite party No.1 through Mr.Ranjeet on 16.8.2012 and again on 10.11.2012, both the times, the said RO system was found running properly and there was no complaint regarding its functioning. The RO system was got installed by the opposite party No.1 from Mr.Jatinder Kumar, Serviceman of the opposite party No.1 and the same was installed and was working properly after installation and the complainant was also fully satisfied with the same. There is no problem regarding the gap in the joint of the said RO system as alleged by the complainant. At the time of both the free services, no complaint has been made by the complainant regarding the functioning of the said RO system. The opposite party No.1 sent its serviceman Mr.Jatinder Kumar for the service of the said RO system in the month of March, 2013 but however none was present at home, the house was locked and on enquiry, the serviceman came to know that the complainant met with an accident. Mr.Jatinder Kumar informed the service head of the opposite party No.1 namely Balbir Singh about the same, he gave the remarks in this regard in the service card, Ex.OP1/3. Thereafter on 3.5.2013, the opposite party No.1 sent Mr.Jatinder Kumar for service of the said RO system but the complainant refused to allow him to provide the service to the said RO system and asked for the new RO system against the old RO system, Mr.Jatinder Kumar again informed Balbir Singh, Head, he gave remarks in this regard in the service card Ex.OP1/3.

9. The wife of the complainant sent an e-mail on dated 9.5.2013 at 4:22 PM vide Ex.C6 to the opposite parties regarding the defect in the said RO system. The relevant portion of Ex.C6 is reproduced:-

“I purchased a Kent RO system from your distributor situated at Ajit Road, Bathinda, M/s Tele Purifier System vide bill No.3899 dated 30.5.2012 worth Rs.15,700/-, product Kent Pearl S.No.KR120318013. But after 6-7 months of purchase, it started giving us troubles. When I complained about it to the abovesaid distributor, he sent mechanic to repair it, but they were not able to repair it and said that it had a manufacturing defect. They gave me the number of the area manager Mr.Man Singh (Mob:80540-09204). We contacted him many times and finally got a reply on 8 Feb 2013. He told us that they have got permission from the company to replace 5 units of Kent RO, out of which one is your's and your RO will be replaced soon. In between we try to contact Mr.Man Singh many times. He always says that he is not in Bathinda when he will have tour at Bathinda, he will surely got replaced mine RO Unit. Sir, I am senior citizen and my husband met with an accident and due to that he is bed ridden. Else, nobody is here to take care of ours. We had suffered a lot for arranging RO water from alternate source. PL look into the matter and got the grievance solved as earliest so that I may not suffer further.”

The said RO system was installed in the house of the complainant on 30.5.2012 by Mr.Jatinder Kumar and the first free service has been provided on 16.8.2012. The service column in Ex.OP1/3 has been signed by Kulwant Kaur, wife of the complainant. A further perusal of Ex.OP1/3 shows that the second free service has been provided on 10.11.2012 and the same has been signed by one Pooja Rani, in March, 2013, the remarks has been given in the service card 'Customer residence locked, mishappening that why my serviceman reporting the house locked', again on 3.5.2013 the remarks has been given in the service card 'Service boy visit for service but customer refused and say they want new RO system against old RO system'. This service card is only signed once by Smt.Kulwant Kaur, the wife of the complainant. The remarks are given by the opposite parties on the service card does not bear the signatures either of the complainant or of his wife, which clearly shows that the complainant was never informed about the remarks entered in the service card. The opposite party No.1 never approached the complainant after that either with the intention to rectify the defect in the said RO system or to replace the same with new one or to refund its price, which clearly shows that the opposite party No.1 with pre-determined mind has not redressed the grievances of the complainant. The opposite party No.2 has not appeared before this Forum which clearly shows that the product i.e. RO system manufactured by it had problem in it, due to which the insects and ants entered into the said RO system and unable to purify the water properly. The complainant has averred in his entire complaint that he contacted Sh.Man Singh, Area Manager, the opposite party No.1 has placed on file only the affidavits of one Balbir Singh, Service Head, Bathinda and Nitin Bhatnagar but no affidavit of Sh.Man Singh, Area Manager has been placed on file by the opposite parties to prove that there was no such complaint regarding the entering of insects and ants in the said RO system or to show that the complainant has not called Sh.Man Singh on his telephone for the redressal of his grievances. Moreover there is no affidavit of Jatinder Kumar or Ranjeet who have conducted the services of the said RO system. The remarks in the service card are not reported at the spot, rather it has been specifically mentioned by the opposite party No.1 in its reply that Balbir Singh, Head was informed by the serviceman and which shows he (Balbir Singh) recorded the remarks while sitting at his office but he never visited at the spot to inspect the said RO system which itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as no prudent man i.e. complainant, he too of 85 years of age knocks the door of this Forum, if there was no problem in the RO system. Moreover it was the duty of the opposite parties to dealt with the complaint of the complainant on priority basis being senior citizen, rather the opposite parties lingered on the matter on one or the other pretext.

10. Thus from the facts and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that the RO system sold to the complainant is defective one and insects and ants from the outside enter in it which makes the water dirty and unfit for human consumption. If for the argument sake it is believed that there is no defect in the said RO system and it is working properly, but, the presence of insects and ants in the said RO system spoils the pure contents of the water which can cause damage to the health of the complainant and his wife. Thus the entering of the insects show that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the said RO system.

11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and Rs.7000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,700/- to the complainant and at the same time the complainant will handover the RO system in question to the opposite parties.

11. The compliance of this order be done jointly and severally by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. In case of non-compliance the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.15,700/- till realization.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum

26-09-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member