Date of Filing : 17.05.2010
Date of Order : 29.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.239/2010
FRIDAY THIS 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mrs. Sathyabhama Singhal,
W/o. Mr. Mahabir Prasad Singhal,
Plot No.211, Kuppusamy Chetty Street,
Golden George Nagar,
Nerkundram,
Chennai 600 107. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. M/s. Morf India Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Regd. Off 2nd and 3rd Floors,
Malles Manor,
19, Periyar Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
2. The Branch Manager,
M/s. Morf India Limited,
37/95, Rangarajapuram Main Road,
Ground & First Floor,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600 024. ..Opposite parties
For the Complainant : M/s. Rajendra Prasad Tayal
For the opposite parties : M/s. K. Ravikumar
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.28,400/- as cost of the Water Purifier unit with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submits that he has purchased the complaint mentioned water purifier for the cost of Rs.38,400/- from the opposite parties on 18.11.2008. The complainant has paid Rs.28,400/- the remaining balance Rs.10,000/- as to be paid as balance by the complainant to the opposite parties. The complainant further stated that the said water purifier within a month from the date of installation was not properly functioning though for the same complaint was made to the opposite party, the opposite parties have also attended the problem on several dates but the problem was not rectified even after the opposite parties have applied chemicals namely sodium chloride for the treatment of water the said water purifier is not working as promised by the opposite parties at the time of installation, further the opposite parties have also taken back water level controller which is the value of Rs.5000/-, finally on 05.05.2009 on the complaint made by the complainant the opposite parties have attended the work and water samples were taken for lab test by them and was told on 08.05.2009 that it received the lab report, according to the lab report after treatment water colour was dark brown with iron content of 10.56ppm. TDS 1400 ppm, NaOH quantity 90/100 gram and water could not be potable, again the opposite parties checked the water on 10.05.2009 and found that the water quali was poor and the next day i.e on 11.05.2009 the opposite parties checked the water and the water quanli was poor, again on 15.05.2009 and 18-05-2009 the opposite parties visited the water purifier Unit and found that the water quality was not upto standard despite of chemical treatment which ought not to be and unit ought to be run without any chemical treatment. The complainant further stated that on 20.05.2009, 21.05.2009 and 23.05.2009 when the opposite parties have visited the unit on the complaint made by the complainant have found soil, NaOH and other harmful chemical in the water but tried to explain about the chemical component of water and told the complainant that the present unit could not improve the water quality, however they have given falsely worksheet on 24.05.2009 in which the complainant has made endorsement that “the water is not fit for drink and not for using.” Accordingly the complainant had issued legal notice dated 9.11.2009 claiming refund of Rs.28,000/- paid by the complainant with interest and compensation. But the opposite party neither replaced the unit with error free unit nor refund money As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for claiming refund a sum of Rs.28,400/- as cost of the Water Purifier unit with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
Written Version of opposite parties is in briefly as follows:
2. The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite parties submit that the water treatment plant supplied by the opposite parties was a simple / basic Iron remover plant as clearly mentioned in their Delivery challan, invoice and other documents. The Iron remover plant as the name suggests was meant to only to remove the excess iron from the water along with associates contaminants such as excess turbidity and suspended solids. This product was never meant to remove other foreign particles or chemicals or other impurities in the ground water as claimed by the complainant. The purpose of the plant was to make the water suitable for general purpose and not for drinking purpose. The five years guarantee was only for the Vessel and not for the entire unit. The opposite parties further submits that it has been very clearly mentioned on the backside of the invoice given to the complainant at the time of the said purchase besides informing her orally. The opposite parties representatives never assured any false replacement guarantee to the complainant as alleged by her. The Iron Remover plant supplied by to the complainant was working at peak efficiency until the complainant’s ground water characteristics changed. Since the unit was found not delivering the guaranteed results, the opposite party sent the raw water and treated water samples for testing and found out the drastic change in the raw water characteristics. Subsequently, the technical personnel of the opposite parties informed the complainant about the same and recommended the addition of pH neutralization chemicals to the complainant on the concurrence of the complainant. The claim for refund of Rs.28,400/- towards the price of the water purifier unit and compensation of Rs.70,000/- as claimed by the complainant in the complaint are without any basis. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complaint mentioned water purifier installed by the
opposite parties was not properly functioning?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of
the Water purifier and compensation against the opposite parties
as prayed for in the complaint? If so, to what extent. ?
5. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties , proof affidavits filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 filed on the side of complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 filed on the side of opposite parties and considered the arguments of the both sides.
6. There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased complaint mentioned water purifier for the cost of Rs.38,400/- from the opposite parties as per invoice Ex.A1 dated 18.11.2008 towards the said cost, the complainant has paid Rs.28,400/- the remaining balance Rs.10,000/- has to be paid as balance by the complainant to the opposite parties. The different component of the said water purifier was delivered by the opposite parties to the complainant as per Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. The techno commercial proposal for standard water purification, the copy of the printed pamphlets issued by the opposite parties and the operations Ex.A5 and manual for the water treatment plant Ex.A6 which were provided by the opposite parties to the complainant were filed as documents.
7. Whereas the complainant has raised grievance in the complaint that the said water purifier within a month from the date of installation was not properly functioning though for the same complaint was made to the opposite party, the opposite parties have also attended the problem on several dates but the problem was not rectified even after the opposite parties have applied chemicals namely sodium chloride for the treatment of water the said water purifier is not working as promised by the opposite parties at the time of installation, further the opposite parties have also taken back water level controller which is the value of Rs.5000/- finally on 05.05.2009 on the complaint made by the complainant the opposite parties have attended the work and water samples were taken for lab test by them and was told on 08.05.2009 that it received the lab report, according to the lab report after treatment water colour was drak brown with iron content of 10-56ppm. TDS 1400 ppm, NaOH quantity 90/100gram and water could not be potable, again the opposite parties checked the water on 10.05.2009 and found that the water quantity was poor and the next day i.e on 11.05.2009 the opposite parties checked the water and the water quantity was poor, again on 15.05.2009 and 18.05.2009 the opposite parties visited the water purifier Unit and found that the water quality was not upto the standard despite of chemical treatment which ought not to be and unit ought to be run without any chemical treatment. The complainant further stated that on 20.05.2009, 21.05.2009 and 23.05.2009 when the opposite parties have visited the unit on the complaint made by the complainant have found soil, NaOH and other harmful chemical in the water but tried to explain about the chemical component of water and told the complainant that the present unit could not improve the water quality, however they have given false worksheet on 24.05.2009 in which the complainant has made endorsement that “the water is not fit for drink and not for using” Though this particular copy of the report alleged have been given by the opposite parties in which the complainant has made endorsement have not produced before this forum. The other reports water test reports taken by the opposite parties are filed as Ex. A12 and Ex. A13. As such the said plant is not functioning properly, the outcome of water after treatment from the said unit is not useful for drinking purpose and not fit for other use of the residence of the complainant.
8. Whereas the opposite party has contended that the water purifier plant supplied by the opposite party was simple/ basic iron remover plant, has clearly mentioned in their Delivery challan Invoice and other documents as the name suggested only to remove the excess iron from the water along with associated contaminates such as turbidity and suspended solids and said product was meant to remove only the excess iron and never meant for other foreign particles and chemicals or other impurities in the ground water as claimed by the complainant, the purpose of plant was to make the water suitable for general purpose and not for drinking purpose.
9. Considering the above mentioned averments made by the complainant and the documents filed on the side of complainant with regard to the purpose and use of the said water purifier purchased by the complainant and supplied by the opposite parties, particularly the pamphlet the Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and the contents thereon and the said water purifier was installed in the residence of the complainant for her residential use, clearly shows that the said water purifier was sold through the representative of the opposite party to the complainant that it can be used for the purification of water for the use of residential purpose, such as drinking, washing and other use meant for the residence. Contrary to this the contention made by the opposite parties as mentioned above that the said complaint mentioned purifier supplied by them only for the purpose of removing excess iron from the water and treated water cannot be used for drinking purpose are all not acceptable. Further despite of several attempt made by the opposite parties on the complaint made by the complainant, though the opposite parties have also tried to make the water purifier to work proper they failed to do so, is proved, considering the both side case on record. Therefore we are of the considered view that as contended by the complainant the opposite parties have on the misrepresentation and on false promises sold and supplied the said water purifier to the complainant is acceptable. Even as per the case of the complainant, the opposite parties admitted that the purification of water by the said purification of water plant was depends upon the nature of the ground water consent is acceptable, the very purpose of purchasing and installing the water purifier by the complainant is for getting a purified water for the use of residence cannot be denied by the opposite parties. The functioning of the complaint mentioned water purifier which was found not properly functioning within the month of its installation clearly proves that the opposite parties have not properly analyzed the water source available in the residence of the complainant have suggested and sold the said water purifier to the complainant. As contented by the opposite parties if the opposite parties have realized after making several attempts by rectifying the defect and also applying chemicals which are unwarranted and found that the proper functioning of plant was not restored as required by the complainant for the purpose for which it was installed i.e in getting purified water, the opposite parties would have taken back the said plant and would have refunded the cost of the plant to the complainant as demanded by her. Instead of doing so, the several contentions made by the opposite parties in this proceeding to resist the complainant’s allegation are all not acceptable and not sustainable. The water analysis report said to have been given by the opposite parties dated 08.05.2009 and 19.10.2009 Ex.A11 and
Ex.A12 for the sample of water tested by the opposite parties for the said relevant date were also not free of iron as contended by the complainant. Therefore the complaint mentioned water purifier plant supplied by the opposite parties is not properly functioning and not full filled the purpose for which the complainant has purchased is acceptable. Being the experts in selling and installation of such water purification plants, the opposite parties would have taken appropriate steps by taking samples of water in the residence of the complainant before installation and would have found out whether the said water purifier was suitable for the said water resource for the purpose for which the complainant was proposed to purchase the said water plant. Therefore the opposite parties having not taken appropriate steps and not guided the complainant properly have sold and supplied the said plant for the mere purpose of business as such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice towards the complaint mentioned transaction with complainant is acceptable. Therefore to that extent the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
10. Therefore we are of the considered view considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are liable to refund a sum of Rs.27,154/- towards the cost collected from the complaint i.e Rs.28400/- less of the errection charges of Rs.1246/- (since it has been exhausted by installation work was done by the complainant and also several times attended the problem of the said plant) mentioned in the Ex.A1. Since the said amount was not returned by the opposite parties despite of the legal notice given by the complainant Ex.A17, dated 09.11.2009, the opposite parties are also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 09.11.2009 to till the date of payment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for compensation sought for in the complaint against the opposite parties. However the opposite parties are also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant. Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.27,154/-, (Rupees Twenty seven thousand one hundred and fifty four only) towards the refund of the cost of the water purifier after taking back of the entire unit with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 09.11.2009 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated by the President directly to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us on this the 26th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 18.11.2008 - Copy of Purchase Invoice.
Ex.A2- 23.10.2008 - Copy of Delivery Challan.
Ex.A3- 8.11.2008 - Copy of Delivery Challan.
Ex.A4- 15.10.2008 - Copy of Proposal for water plant.
Ex.A5- - - Copy of Brochure of opposite party.
Ex.A6- - - Copy of Operation & Maintenance Manual.
Ex.A7- 19.5.2009 - Copy of Complaint letter.
Ex.A8- 21.5.2009 - Copy of Ack Card.
Ex.A9- 20.8.2009 - Copy of Fax report with letter.
Ex.A10- - - Copy of Product History card.
Ex.A11- 11.11.2008 Copy of Water Analysis Report.
Ex.A12- 8.5.2009 -Copy of Water Analysis Report.
Ex.A13- 19.10.2009 –Copy of Analysis Report.
Ex.A14- 9.11.2009 - Copy of Legal notice.
Ex.A15- 11.11.2009 –Copy of Postal Receipts.
Ex.A16- 15.12.2009 –Copy of Rejoinder by the opposite party.
Ex.A17- 30.4.2010 - Copy of Reply notice by complainant.
Ex.A18- - - Copy of Postal Receipts and Ack.
Ex.A19- 23.1.2010 - Copy of Reply notice by complainant.
Ex.A20- 23.1.2010 - Copy of Postal Receipt.
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-
Ex.B1- 23.10.2008 - Copy of Invoice.
Ex.B2- 23.10.2008 - Copy of Delivery challan
Ex.B3- - - Copy of Catalaugh.
Ex.B4- 19.10.2008 - Copy of Order Form.
Ex.B5- - - Copy of Flip Chart.
Ex.B6- 11.11.2008 - Copy of Water analysis report.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
