O R D E R 

(per Smt. R.Seetaramamma, Member & President (FAC))

          1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.99,623/- towards the set value of Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B and also to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation for damages and mental agony and for costs of the complaint to the complainant. 

          2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that the complainant is a physician practicing as an ENT specialist by running a clinic in the name and style of Kanthi Hospital at Tanuku of West Godavari District.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 belongs to Ion Exchange limited.  Opposite party No.3 has been selling the products of opposite parties 1 & 2 through its agents and representatives.  They approached the complainant and convinced the complainant to purchase set of Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B by explaining of its various advantages at the hospital of the complainant.  

          The complainant by believing the words of the opposite parties, purchased the set of Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B along with other parts in that set and paid a sum of Rs.99,623/-.  As opposite party No.3 stated that the Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B would function affectively and its installation is very beneficial for the purpose of hospital of the complainant.  So, the complainant purchased the same on 26.3.2013 under invoice number 559.  One weak thereafter installation of Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B set in open place on the terrace of the hospital of the complainant at Tanuku, the complainant was found that the release of the water from the Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B was stopped.  He made a complaint to opposite party No.3, then opposite party No.3 got examined the same and stated that algae was formed in the cylinder and also in the filter due to which the filter was blocked and water was not coming out and the opposite party No.3 got changed the cylinder and filter, they obtained charges from the complainant towards traveling expenses of Rs.200/-.  10 days later the same problem repeated, the complainant once again contacted opposite party No.3 for several times on phone and requested the opposite party No.3 to carry out necessary repairs, but opposite party No.3 did not respond upto 45 days.  Later 3^rd opposite party send a technician to the hospital and examined the Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B and reported entire resin was to be removed and replaced with fresh resin, which needs the involvement of the service of the company and contacted with the service provide of the 3^rd opposite party.  One weak thereafter the complainant tried to regenerate the Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B and found that the volve ment for supplying water was closed and the by-pass volve was opened, as a result the ground water has been directly pumping into tank.  Then the complainant opened the volve of the softener, by closing the by-pass volve, during generation resin came out from the drain, due to that the same went into tank and also flown into 30 taps of the hospital and 30 taps were blocked.  Consequently that 30 taps were got repaired by the complainant with a local plumber and also suffered with inconvenience for two days due to blockage of taps. 

          The complainant made a complaint to opposite party No.3 but there is no proper response even though the complainant made a complaint to the customer care of the company the problem was not rectified.  On 2/5/2013 the technician from the company came to the hospital of the complainant and examined the machine.  He also claimed traveling expenses from the complainant.  He informed that within 15 days from that day resin would be replaced but they failed to do so.  The complainant once again complained to customer care on 16-5-2013 and there is no response.  As the said machine has not been properly working, the very purpose of its installation is defeated.  Till this date even though there was number of representations and requests made by the complainant to got repair the same, the opposite parties failed to give their services properly to the complainant.  The complainant has been subjected to discomfort and inconvenience due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties.  The complainant got issued a legal notice through registered post with acknowledgment to opposite parties 1 and 2 on 16-08-2013, opposite parties received the same and kept quiet.  The complainant also made correspondence through e-mails with opposite parties on 01-10-2013, 02-10-2013, 03-10-2013 and 25-10-2013 but there is no response from the opposite parties.  As a lost resought the complainant is filed this complaint seeking the above mentioned reliefs.

4.       Opposite parties 1 to 3 after receiving notices of this Forum did not choose to appear before this Forum, called absent and they were set ex-parte. 

5.       In support of his complaint the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A5.

6.       Now the point that arise for consideration is:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief’s sought for by him in the complaint?  If so, to what extent?

7.       The complainant to support his contention he filed A1 to A5 documents along with his chief affidavit.  As seen from Ex.A1 to A5 documents A1 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.  Exs.A2 & A3 are the Acknowledgements received by opposite parties 2 & 3.  Ex.A4 is the mail send by the complainant to opposite party No.3.  Ex.A54 is the DC cum invoice Dt.26-03-2013 with invoice No.559 are discloses, as the complainant purchased the total set of Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B from the opposite party No.3 through Ex.A5, for an amount of Rs.99623/-, thereafter it was not properly worked at the hospital of the complainant.  The complainant made a request several times by phones or mails to the opposite parties to get repairs of that machine and he vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties and he lost faith with the opposite parties and he claim compensation from the opposite parties through Ex.A4.  Later he issued registered post with acknowledgement due to the opposite parties, but there is no response from the opposite parties.  Thus A1 to A5 clearly discloses the contentions of the complainant in his complaint are true, when the opposite parties remained ex-party, even after receiving notices from this Forum, there is nothing available on record to disbelieve the version of the complainant.   Along with Ex.A4 the complainant filed mail copy sent from Venugopal Krishna belongs to opposite party to one Mr. M.Venkatesh who is also belongs to opposite parties on 03-10-2013 by stating that “Herewith I am forwarding Dr.Rangam Chetti of Tanuku’s Ngs6B complaint concern, after me and dileep and watermart visited the site and rectify the problem on 26^th of September, again he faced the same problem and resin came out.  Please go through below cleint’s trailing mail. My sincere request is send technician and check properly and sort out the problem”. That it self clearly discloses that it is nothing but an admission about the installation of Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B to the complainant and it be came repairs, the complainant complied the same to opposite parties and they got repaired once.  Later the same problem repeated and one of the technician belongs to opposite party addressed another technician Mr.M.Venkatesh to send another technician and check the machine properly and sort out the problem with which caused inconvenience to the complainant.  The mail itself indicates it is the response mail to the mail send by the complainant to the opposite parties.  That itself is sufficient to state the complaint raised by the complainant is true when the opposite parties failed to respond to the complainant to sort out his problem, it is nothing but a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to the relief’s sought for by him in the complaint. 

8.       But, the complainant sought entire amount which was shown in Ex.A5 i.e., Rs.99,623/- and Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation for damages and mental agony.  When the complainant paid Rs.99,623/- for the total set of Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B, though thereafter he paid traveling charges to the mechanics of opposite parties, twice he is not entitled for compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-.  As per Ex.A5 he is only paid Rs.99,623/- for the total set of Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B.  Because of repair of Ion Exchange Water Softener 6B the total set became useless, the complainant is entitled to that extent, for which he was sustained with actual loss.  So, the complainant is entitled for the expenses incurred by him for purchasing of the total set under Ex.A5.

9.       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3  (jointly and severally) to pay Rs.99,623/- under Ex.A5, DC cum invoice, and also an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint to the complainant, within one month from the date of the dispatch of free copy of this order. The complainant herewith directed to return the total damaged set of Ion exchange water softener 6B to the opposite parties before receiving the awarded amount.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 14^th day of November, 2014.          

Sri  S.Sreeram                                       Smt R.Seetaramamma                                         MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT (FAC)

Appendix of evidence                                                                               Witness examined

For complainant         :         Evidence affidavit of complainant

For opposite parties     :        None

Documents marked  :

For complainant        :

For opposite parties         :         Nil

President (FAC)