DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 4th day of November 2022
C.C. 146/2018
Complainant
C. Mythily,
“Midhila”, House No. 916,
Palazhi, G.A: College. P.O,
Kozhikode – 673014,
Opposite Party
- The Customer Care Officer,
B1/B2, 701, Marathon Next Gen Innova,
Mumbai – 400 013.
- Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd.,
Buranwala Ohowk,
Buranwala P.O, Banotiwala,
Baddi District, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh – 174103,
- The Manager,
Euroka Forbes Limited,
Civil Station,
Kozhikode – 673020.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 28/05/2016 the complainant bought a water purifier “AQUASURE” model of Ureka Forbes from the Police Canteen, Kozhikode. The technician of the company installed the same in the house of the complainant on 31/05/2016. But the water purifier became defective on 16/06/2016. When the technician was contacted, he instructed to register a complaint and accordingly a complaint was registered. Despite several phone calls by the complainant, nobody came for repairs. The daughter of the complainant contacted the opposite parties several times and finally it was informed that the technician had met with a bike accident on 19/08/2016. But nobody turned up. After repeated phone calls, a technician by name Prasanth came and inspected the water purifier on 23/08/2016 and informed that the issue was in respect of the board and that it would take one week time for repairs. But thereafter nobody turned up and the water purifier is now an unworthy product.
3. On 02/05/2017 she issued a registered letter to the company and the customer care. After 2 months, three persons came and inspected the water purifier and went away stating that necessary steps would be taken to repair the same. But no positive action was taken in this regard. There was gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. She was put to mental agony, besides monetary loss. Hence the complaint for refund of the price and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
4. Supplemental third opposite party was impleaded as per order dated 24/09/2019 in IA 372/2019.
5. The first and second opposite parties remained absent and were set ex-parte. The third opposite party failed to file the version in time and hence the third opposite party was also set ex-parte.
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
7. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A6 were marked.
8. Heard.
9. Point No.1 : The complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the purchase price of the water purifier and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite parties alleging gross deficiency of service.
10. The complainant purchased the water purifier paying Rs. 6,441.03/- on 28/05/2016 from the Central Police Canteen, Kozhikode as per Ext A1. PW1 has deposed that after 15 days, the water purifier became defective and not working and in spite of repeated phone calls and communications, no effective steps were taken by the opposite parties to repair the same. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties chose to remain absent and did not participate in the proceedings. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. The complainant’s case regarding deficient service on the part of the opposite parties stands proved through the testimony of the PW1 and Exts A1 to A6.
11. It is true that the complainant has failed to prove that the water purifier in question is having any inherent manufacturing defect by getting it examined by an expert so as to get replacement of the product or return of the price. But the fact remains that the complainant was not in a position to use the water purifier after 15 days of the installation of the same and in spite of repeated phone calls and reminders including registered notice, no positive action was taken by the opposite parties to redress her grievance. The neglect, negligence and inaction on the part of the opposite parties constitute gross deficiency of service which has resulted in monetary loss, mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. The product is rendered worthless as far as the complainant is concerned. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case.
12. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC 146/2018 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation.
c) No order as to costs.
d) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 4th day of November, 2022.
Date of Filing: 28/05/2018.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the letter dated – 02/05/2017.
Ext. A2 – Copy of the bill.
Ext. A3 – Copy of the letter dated 02/05/2017.
Ext. A4 - Copy of the postal acknowledgement.
Ext. A5 - Copy of the D.D Rs. 100/-.
Ext. A6 - Postal acknowledgement.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Mythily. C (Complainant).
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
