the manager ion exchange(india)ltd V/S G Gopal - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

Cc/08/1933

G Gopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

the manager ion exchange(india)ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shiva ramu

13 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. Cc/08/1933

G Gopal						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
the manager ion exchange(india)ltd						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 13th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1933/2008 COMPLAINANT G. Gopal, Aged about 64 years, S/o. G. Aswathappa, Residing at No. 36, 2nd Main, Vijayarangam Layout, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004. Advocate (N. Shivaramu) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager, ION Exchange (India) Ltd., No. 2475, 16th F Main, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 030. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective softenizer or refund the cost of the same with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being impressed with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, thought of purchasing the softenizer for his domestic use. In that regard he contacted the representative of the OP and they agreed to install the softenizer 3B, which is going to convert the hard water into soft portable water for the use. OP having accepted the said order issued the order form No. 45673, dated 08.01.2008 and collected the cost of Rs.30,850/-. Though OP installed the said softenizer 3B in the borewell of the complainant at his house, unfortunately it did not give the expected soft water. Before installation of the said softenizer OP is bound to conduct hydro tests, but it failed to do so. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to the OP that he is unable to get the positive result, went in futile. Earlier he used to fill up the overhead tank through the said borewell within 1 hour, but after installation of the softenizer it took 5 hours to fill up the overhead tank, thereby he suffered the electricity loss also. When his demands went in futile, he got issued the notice on 21.04.2008. Again there was no response. Thus complainant felt both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase the defect free softenizer, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the defective softenizer installed and serviced by the OP. Under such circumstances he felt both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. Though OP appeared through the Learned Advocate failed to file the version and evidence. It appears OP is not serious about defending their case if any. Hence it is taken as version and evidence not filed. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, thought of purchasing one softenizer 3B so as to convert the hard water which he was getting through borewell into soft portable water. The fact that OP agreed to install the said softenizer 3B and collected Rs.30,850/- vide order form No. 45673, dated 08.01.2008 is not at dispute. The documents to that effect are produced. Though OP installed the said softenizer 3B at the borewell of the complainant, but failed to conduct the hydro test as contemplated. Complainant was unable to get the expected quantity of soft water as promised by the OP. Thus complainant felt both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 5. The evidence of the complainants finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-participation of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Within a span of 2-3 months he felt that the said softenizer 3B instrument is inherently defective. Though he made repeated requests and demands to the OP by making several correspondences and even by causing the notice, there was no proper response. It is further contended by the complainant that earlier he used to fill up his overhead tank through the said borewell within 1 hour, but after the installation of softenizer 3B it takes atleast 5 hours to fill up the overhead tank, thereby he suffered electricity loss also. 6. Complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase the defect free softenizer 3B instrument, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP having collected such a huge amount, failed to supply and install defect free softenizer, thereby accrued the wrongful gain to itself and caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstances the complainant deserves certain relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the new softenizer 3B defect free in place of the earlier instrument supplied at the same original cost within 2 months from the date of communication of this order and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. In default OP is directed to refund Rs.30,850/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from January 2008 till realization and also pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and take back its defective softenizer 3B. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 13th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1933/2008 COMPLAINANT G. Gopal, Aged about 64 years, S/o. G. Aswathappa, Residing at No. 36, 2nd Main, Vijayarangam Layout, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004. Advocate (N. Shivaramu) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager, ION Exchange (India) Ltd., No. 2475, 16th F Main, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 030. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective softenizer or refund the cost of the same with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being impressed with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, thought of purchasing the softenizer for his domestic use. In that regard he contacted the representative of the OP and they agreed to install the softenizer 3B, which is going to convert the hard water into soft portable water for the use. OP having accepted the said order issued the order form No. 45673, dated 08.01.2008 and collected the cost of Rs.30,850/-. Though OP installed the said softenizer 3B in the borewell of the complainant at his house, unfortunately it did not give the expected soft water. Before installation of the said softenizer OP is bound to conduct hydro tests, but it failed to do so. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to the OP that he is unable to get the positive result, went in futile. Earlier he used to fill up the overhead tank through the said borewell within 1 hour, but after installation of the softenizer it took 5 hours to fill up the overhead tank, thereby he suffered the electricity loss also. When his demands went in futile, he got issued the notice on 21.04.2008. Again there was no response. Thus complainant felt both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase the defect free softenizer, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the defective softenizer installed and serviced by the OP. Under such circumstances he felt both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. Though OP appeared through the Learned Advocate failed to file the version and evidence. It appears OP is not serious about defending their case if any. Hence it is taken as version and evidence not filed. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, thought of purchasing one softenizer 3B so as to convert the hard water which he was getting through borewell into soft portable water. The fact that OP agreed to install the said softenizer 3B and collected Rs.30,850/- vide order form No. 45673, dated 08.01.2008 is not at dispute. The documents to that effect are produced. Though OP installed the said softenizer 3B at the borewell of the complainant, but failed to conduct the hydro test as contemplated. Complainant was unable to get the expected quantity of soft water as promised by the OP. Thus complainant felt both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 5. The evidence of the complainants finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-participation of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Within a span of 2-3 months he felt that the said softenizer 3B instrument is inherently defective. Though he made repeated requests and demands to the OP by making several correspondences and even by causing the notice, there was no proper response. It is further contended by the complainant that earlier he used to fill up his overhead tank through the said borewell within 1 hour, but after the installation of softenizer 3B it takes atleast 5 hours to fill up the overhead tank, thereby he suffered electricity loss also. 6. Complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase the defect free softenizer 3B instrument, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP having collected such a huge amount, failed to supply and install defect free softenizer, thereby accrued the wrongful gain to itself and caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstances the complainant deserves certain relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the new softenizer 3B defect free in place of the earlier instrument supplied at the same original cost within 2 months from the date of communication of this order and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. In default OP is directed to refund Rs.30,850/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from January 2008 till realization and also pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and take back its defective softenizer 3B. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.