Ld. Advocate(s)

                                For Complainant: Satyabrata Ghosh

                   For OP/OPs : Koushik Talukdar

Date of filing of the case                  :17.11.2022

Date of Disposal  of the case            :30.11.2023

Final Order / Judgment dtd.30.11.2023

The dispute relating to product  purchase  by the  complainant  from the OPs led the complainant to lodge this case against the OPs. The pith and substance of the case of the complaint  is that the complainant Ranjit Kumar Biswas  contacted  with the OP NO.1 and OP No.2 the director ION Exchange  India Limited  and the  Manager ION Exchange  India Limited respectively by online. Their sales Executive  assured  that an inspection shall be done  by them for inspection  of Water Treatment Plant. So, they sent an engineer for installation  of the Water Plant.  He visited  the complainant’s house  and convinced  the complainant  to install  a water treatment plant they also insisted  the complainant to purchase the said water treatment plant  for his house.  Having  influenced  by the said version  the complainant purchased a water treatment plant from ION Exchange  on 30.03.2022 that payment of Rs.49,000/- from the  showroom  of the OP NO.3, the Manager,  Blue Bird  Enterprise , Chakdaha, Nadia. Thereafter, the OP NO.1 & 2 installed  the said water treatment plant  on 20.04.2022. Just one day  after the installation,  problem cropped up which was informed to the OPs.  The quality  of water was very poor  with bad smell  and bad colour. The water  was also turbid. Subsequently, OP NO.1 & 2 sent a  technician  on 28.04.2022 and he took  sample  of water  and got the water  examined  through N.D International Government  Registered Company. The said  N.D. company sent the test report. As per the  report the water  is  chemically  unsatisfactory  due to high colour  turbidity  iron content, calcium total  alkalinity   and total hardness  are beyond  the average  limit but within  possible limit. Though the water treatment  plant was installed  as per advise  of official  of the OP NO.1 & 2, yet  they disclosed  that more machineries  are required  to be installed to get pure drinking water for a further cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. So the OPs acted  unfair trade practice  with the complainant  and fraud suppressing  the actual thing.  The OPs  intentionally  sold the said  plant  to the complainant  to extract  money from the  complainant.  The complainant therefore,  served  an Advocate letter  to the OPs  of which OP No.3 only sent reply through e-mail but others  did not respond. Due to  misdeed  of the OPs  the complainant is facing  huge problem for scarcity  of the drinking water. Hence, this case  is filed.  The cause of action arose on 28.04.2022 and continued  till the filing of this case. The complainant  therefore, prayed for an award for refund of the Rs.49,000/- to the complainant  with interest  at the rate of 12% per annum, Rs.2,00,000/- for compensation and Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost.

OP No.1 & 2 initially  contested the case  but after  filing W/V did not take any steps.  So, the OP NO.1 & 2 could not establish any case made out in the W/V.

The OP No.3, however,  contested the case by filing W/V wherein they  denied the  major allegations  against them. The OP No.3 challenged the case on the ground that there is no cause of action. The positive  defence case of the OP NO.3,  the Manager, ION Exchange  India Limited  in brief  is that the OP No.3 being  the sole proprietor  of the Blue Bird Enterprise is engaged  in selling of Water Purifier  and subordinate products  at his showroom  and  the OP NO.1 & 2 came to  OP NO.3 and approached for selling  of their products through her showrooms. The OP No.1 & 2 also assured that all the products are  good quality, ISI certified. If there are any dispute in the product  then  OP No.1 & 2 shall be  liable for after sales service  and they will deal with the customer  in that case. The OP No.3 never endorsed  the disputed product  to the complainant. The complainant himself  contacted with the  OP No.1 & 2 and as per their suggestion the complainant voluntary  asked for the said product and disclosed  that he had previously consulted with the OP No.1 & 2 and as per their suggestion he came to the OP No.3 showroom to purchase  that product. The  complainant  never  asked the OP No.3 about the nature,  character,  quality durability  after sales service of the said product. The OP NO.3 sold the said product  to the complainant  as per his request. The  OP No.3 is engaged  in the business of selling  different water  purifier  and subordinate  products endorsed  by the OP No.1 & 2.  The OP NO.3 has no liability  to look after the customers  satisfaction after sales service.  In voice issued by OP No.3 to the complainant there is  express declaration  that the OP No.3 ceases  all her responsibility  as soon as  her product leaves her premises  and she has no liability  to take back their products  and on being  agreed the complainant took the product from the OP NO.3.  The complainant  using  the product for purifying  water but the  said product is actually  a water treatment  plant  which technically  differs  from water purifier,  as such  the vision of a water treatment plant  is not like a water purifier.  The complaint  is barred by  the principles  of caveat emptor  and as such he cannot put burden  upon the OP No.3 regarding the  performance  of the alleged  product. So the OP No.3 should be discharged  from this case. The OP No.3 therefore,  claimed that the case  is liable  to be dismissed  with cost.

The conflicting pleadings  of the parties persuaded  this Commission to set forth  the following points for determination.

Points for determination

Point No.1

          Whether the case is maintainable  in its present form and prayer.

Point No.2

          Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief  as prayed for.

Point No.3

          To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1

The OP No.1 & 2 could not establish any point against the complainant. OP No.3 challenged  the case in the W/V on the ground that there is no  cause of action and it is barred by law  of estoppels and acquiescence.

During  argument  Ld. Defence Counsel  for OP No.3, however, did not press those points. Having considered  the pleadings  of the parties and the evidence  on the case  record the Commission comes to the conclusion  that there is both  territorial  jurisdiction  and pecuniary  jurisdiction  of this Commission in respect of  this present case.  The facts and circumstances  of this case  clearly  established that  there is a cause of action to file the present case.

Accordingly, the point no. 1 is answered in favour  of the complainant.

Point No.2 & 3

          Both the points are  very closely  interlinked with  each other  and as           such  these are  taken up  together  for brevity  and convenience  of   discussion.

It is the  specific case of this complainant  that he purchased one water purifier  but it did not function  after purchased and ultimately  it was defective from the very moment of its use.

The complainant  in order to  substantiate  the case adduced  both oral and documentary  evidence.  The complainant  duly stated through affidavit in chief  about the problem  faced by   him. The OP NO.1 & 2 did not counter the contention of the complainant  by filing any affidavit in chief  or leading  any evidence. The OP No.3, however, adduced defence evidence  by filing  affidavit in chief. The complainant  proved the original quotation of water treatment plant dated 27.03.2022 obtained from ION Exchange  India Limited. The complainant  further proved  the receipt  for actual payment of the bill for price of the said water treatment plant which shows  that he paid a sum of Rs.49,000/- to the Blue Bird Enterprise  being the Manager of Blue Bird  Enterprise. There is no dispute about the payment of the actual  price of the said water treatment plant.

The complainant  further proved  the legal  notice served  upon the  OPs through his  Ld. Advocate Satyabrata Ghosh dated 17.05.2022. The OP No.3 Blue Bird  Enterprise  replied to this said notice which is  also  proved  by the complainant.  One test report  of sample  dated 28.04.2022 done by N.D International  stand also proved by the complainant.

Thus after assessing  the  entire evidence  on behalf of the complainant it is crystal  clear  that the  complainant  left no stone  unturned for redressal  of his grievance and accordingly proved all those  documents in course  of trial. The veracity  of those documents  could not be  discarded  by any of these OPs in as much as none of the OPs preferred to cross examine the complainant  in course of the trial .

Thus in the light of the aforesaid  discussion and observation made herein above its stands  well proved  that the complainant  after purchasing  the water treatment plant  did not get  proper service  from the OPs  and as such the demeanour on the part of the OPs tantamount  to deficiency  in service.

However, Ld. Advocate for the OP No.3 argued that  assuming  but not admitting  the allegation  of the complainant  it should be considered  that the OP NO.3  has no liability  since they are just the seller  of the product  in dispute. In this regard  Ld. Advocate  for the OP NO.3  submitted  that as per section 86 of the Consumer Protection Act, the OP NO.3 does not  have  substantial  control over the purchasing or manufacturing packaging labelling of the  product  that caused harm. So as per  section 86, the OP No.3 herein is immuned from any  short of liability in this case.

Ld. Advocate  for the  complainant counter argued that  the complainant purchased the product  on the assurance  of the OP NO.3 so the OP NO.3 cannot escape  their liability.

After due consideration  of argument of Ld. advocates for both the parties  the Commission  considers  it necessary to take recourse  of a decision  passed by  Hon’ble National Commission in a case reported  in Supreme Court  and National Commission on Consumer Law cases Volume I 1986 to 2005 page 345 in revision  petition no.985 of 2000 dated 21.02.2022 wherein  it was held  that both the dealer  and manufacturer  would be  jointly  and severally  liable  in case of manufacturing  defect  of a product  and the dealer  cannot  escape  from the liability.

Thus  having  assessed  the entire evidence  of both the parties  and in the backdrop  of the observation  made herein  above the Commission  comes to the findings  that the complainant  proved the  case against the OPs  up to the hilt. All the  OP NO.1 & 2 & 3 are jointly and severally  responsible  for the defect  in the product  and liable  to refund  the price  of the defective  product.

 Consequently, point 2 &3 are decided in favour of the complainant.

In the result the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.

Hence,

          It is

Ordered

                                                          that the complaint case no.CC/107/2022 be and the same  is allowed  on contest  with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The complainant  Ranjit Kumar Biswas do get  an award  for a sum of Rs.49,000/- together  with interest  at the rate of 12% per annum against the OP NO.1& 2&3 are jointly and severally and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) for deficiency in service, mental pain and agony.  All the OP No.1 & 2 &3 are jointly and severally directed  to pay Rs.84,000/- (Rupees eighty four thousand) to the complainant  together  with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of purchase  till the  date of payment  failing which the entire amount money shall carry an interest  at the rate of 8% per annum  from the date of passing  the final order till the  date of its realisation.

Dealing Assistant to note in the trial register.

The case is accordingly disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.

Dictated & corrected by me

 ............................................

                PRESIDENT

(Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)                                ................ ..........................................

                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                                (Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)

I  concur,

  ........................................                                                 

          MEMBER                                                                

(NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)