IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.
Dated this 16th day of August 2016
Complaint No. 555/2014
Present: 1) Shri.B.V.Gudli, President 2) Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath, Member
3) Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi, Member
-***-
Complainant:
Miss Nisha D/o. Tejpal Jinagouda,
Age: Minor, Occ: Student,
Rep. by her natural father
Shri. Tejpal S/o. Appasaheb Jinagonda,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o. #33, Samrudhi Colony, Navahind Plots,
Anand Nagar, Vadagaon,
Belagavi.
(By Sri.M.D.Patil, Advocate)
V/s.
Opponents:
1) The Eureka Forbes Ltd.,
R/o. Rajendra Building”, IInd main,
1st Cross, Sadashiv Nagar,
Belagavi.
2) The Eureka Forbes Ltd.,
R/o. B1/B2, 702, Marathon NextGen,
Innova, Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel,
Mumbai-400013.
( By Sri.A.M.Soudagar, Advocate)
(Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)
ORDER
U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency, for defective water purifier supplied by the OPs.
2) Notice was served to O.Ps. OPs appeared through their counsel and filed his objections to main petition.
3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced some documents & the OPs filed affidavit and produced some documents.
4) We have heard the arguments of the complainant and O.Ps. and have perused the records.
5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency on the part of O.Ps & entitled to the reliefs sought?
6) Our finding on the point is partly in negative, for the following reasons.
REASONS
7) The complainant has purchased the Eureka Forbes water purifier on 11.04.2014 in the name of minor daughter paying an amount of Rs.12,500/- under tax invoice No.025048 and 025188, by OP.1 in favour in favour of complainant. The complainant further alleged that there was warranty of 12 months from the date of installation or 15 months from the date of sale and OP2 is the manufacturer of the purifier, and the purifier will purify the water, the water used will not harm the human beings and as per the advertisement by the OP1 the complainant purchased the water purifier. The complainant further alleges that, after use of water purifier only for 4-5 days it started unhealthy to use the said water purifier and after drinking water from the water purifier the family members sustained diseases like fever, throat infection, body pain etc., and for treatment paid Rs.50,000/- and immediately the fact was informed to the OP1 and OP1 sent the technician to the house of the complainant and after verifying the same there are no such changes occurred and the complainant have checked the purified water with the medical officer and 2 times the water was tested in the Dist. Health FW Dept. Belgaum and the result was unsatisfactory and the same was complained to the OPs but there was not fruitful results from the OPs side. The complainant further alleges that, the OPs failed in rectifying the defect in the water purifier and on 22.07.2014 the complainant issued legal notice for refund of the amount of Rs.12,500/- the price of the water purifier and Rs.50,000/- towards the medical expenses, but the OPs did not bother to reply to the legal notice. Hence the complainant constrained to file this complaint.
8) On the other hand the OPs have filed objections contending that, it is true that on 11.04.2014 the complainant purchased the Eureka Forbes water purifier for Rs.12,500/- and denied that upon the representation made by the salesman of the OP.1 the complainant has purchased the same and it is true that the warranty period is 12 months. The OPs further contends that it is false to state that there is manufacturing defect and it is false that if defect arises they will indemnify the complainant & it is false that the water purifier was used by the complainant for 4-5 days and the water was unhealthy for consumption and also contended that the complainant has spent Rs.50,000/- for treatment after drinking the water from the water purifier. The OPs further contends that it is false and concocted that the water was sent for testing 2 times to the Dist. Health FW Dept., and it was concluded that the water was unhealthy and the allegations are absolutely denied. It is true that on 22.07.2014 the legal notice was sent by the complainant, but it is false that the OPs sold the defective water purifier and put the complainant for mental harassment and torture and when the complainant approached the OP.1 the OP.1 sent the technician and found that water purifier is in good condition and post purification as well as raw water sample from the said water purifier was forwarded to the laboratory at Bangalore for analysis and the report of test reveals the water is absolutely fit for human consumption and prays for dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency of service.
9) Both the complainant and OPs have produced the respective evidence and produced the documents. We have gone through the facts and allegations and also the defense putforth by the OPs. The only question arises and to be decided is that whether the water purifier purchased by the complainant from OP.1 and manufactured by OP.2 is defective one and the same has been supplied by the OP.1 to the complainant? We have gone through the documents and on perusal of the purchase receipts, there is no dispute in regards to the purchase and sale and the amounts received by the OPs, but the water which the machine purifies is suitable to the human consumption as per the terms and conditions of the Eureka Forbes. The allegation of the complainant is that immediately after purchase and consumption of water for 4-5 days family members suffered from fever, throat infection and approached the doctor for treatment and spent Rs.50,000/-. The complainant has produced the report given by the medical officer of Dist. Surveillance Unit dtd.04.07.2014 and also produced the Analysis Report of water sample received by the Divisional Food Laboratory Belagavi on 14.08.2014 wherein the report was for sample of filtered well water for analysis it were collected on 05.08.2014 and wherein we can notice that as highlighted by the complainant under the chart at sl.no.6 is the TOTAL HARDNESS-RESULT SHOWS 300.0 PPM AND REQUIREMENT –SHOWS 300.0 PPM MAXIMUM. As we understood the both requirement and result shows the same figure and the document dt.13.08.2014 which is the report of Bacteriological analysis of water, shows the most probable number of bacteria per 100 ml of water is counted as 900 and the conclusion given by the Medical Officer is unsatisfactory under the sample no. 1678- filtered well water. Thus, after perusal of both the documents it is clear that the sample water was collected and tested and found unsatisfactory.
10) On the other hand the OPs have also relied on the test report dt.11.08.2014 in regards to water sample collected from the complainant’s water purifier wherein the results shown are unobjectionable towards the TDS and also total hardness per mg./l. The remarks under this document is clearly written as –the above water sample does not confirm to IS:10500-2012 (Second Revision), drinking water specification with respect to Bacteriological analysis. After perusing the hind side of the terms and conditions of the test report at Sl.no.3 – This certificate shall not be produced wholly or in part & cannot be used as evidence in the court of law and shall not be used in any advertisement, media, without the written approval of the laboratory.
11) As per the Hon’ble National Commission’s decision reported in May 2016, to show the defects in the home appliances one should putforth the experts opinion. In the present case on hand both the complainant and OPs have produced the test reports, one which the complainant has produced, reveals the unsatisfactory report and on the other hand the report one produced by the OPs is unobjectionable results. Now the point here to be decided is that, the water purifier supplied is defective. We have gone through the catalogue submitted by the complainant wherein we can notice that it is an total water purification solution, enhanced UV & at first page of the manual which is styled as total pani ka doctor, wherein we can read – backing of 105 water test labs worldwide and – 7 technologies that cures 17 water problems- technological equipped purifier borewell, mixed, tanker, municipal, stored and tap water. By this we can make out that as per the slogan of the OPs it is total pani ka doctor and in the present case on hand the water which the complainant used for purifying is the well water as per their allegation in the complaint and the report which the complainant submitted after testing shows that the water purifier supplied by the OPs is not fit for consumption due to high TDS and by the analysis and report one can come to the conclusion that there is a defect in the water purifier. This is because though the OPs have produced their separate test report, it is their own laboratory which infact and in turn may not issue the report in favour of the complainant and moreover as per their document itself the water does not confirm the international standards and the documents shall not be used as evidence in the court of law. Hence the test report so produced by the OPs cannot be taken into consideration to decide the case on hand.
12) Moreover the OPs are gone to the extent of denying that the complainant has approached the Dist. Health Dept., and have got tested water of the purifier and they have not challenged the report which one is submitted before the Forum, except denial. One has to understand why the public at large purchase the water purifier, because to avoid diseases which are outcome of the contemplated water or the water of well etc., shall not affect the humans. And as per the assurance of the OPs in their catalogue the one purifier supplied to the complainant is defective and the analysis is against the OPs. Therefore after going through the documents and allegations and test reports we are of the conclusion that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OPs for supplying of defective Eureka Forbes water purifier purchased by the complainant on 11.04.2014 from OPs.
13) Considering the facts and material on record, at this stage, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly following order;
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The OP.1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are hereby directed to refund amount of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant under Tax Invoice No. 025048 and 025188 with interest @8% p.a. from 19.08.2014 till realization of entire amount.
The OP.1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are also hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and loss suffered and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the OPs are directed to pay additional compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 16th day of August 2016)
Member Member President.
msr*
