Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/08/2018

R.Anandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager M/s.Aqua Pure plus - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.S.Raghavan

15 Jul 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on :05.01.2018                                                                    

                                                                    Date of disposal   :15.07.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                    TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                             : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.08/2018

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 15^th DAY OF JULY 2022

 

R.Anandh,

No.R-2, DKC Delite,

2 Jeyachandran Nagar,

3^rd Main road,

Pallikaranai, Chennai-100

                                                                                             .. Complainant.       

..Vs..

 

The Manager,

M/s.Aqua Pure Plus,

No.16/48, Ground Floor,

V.V.V.Koil street,

Thiruvalleswarar Nagar,

Thirumangalam, Chennai-40                                                     ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s.R.S.Raghavan, amd 2 others

 

Counsel for the opposite party              : M/s.S. Anandakumar

 

 

ORDER

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,: MEMBER-1

The complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.10,500/- paid for the purchase of water purifier from the opposite party, to pay a compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs for mental agony,  Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.5,000/- for postal expenses.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant states that he has purchased water purifier from opposite party M/s. Aqua Pure Plus Pvt. Ltd. on 02.10.2017 vide invoice no. 48709 on full payment of the same.  The complainant submits that the machine did not work from the day one of the installation.  The complainant has escalated the same, demanding the service from the opposite party in the form of phone calls and e-mails on various dates.  The complainant further states that the complaint has been mishandled from day one.  He was also not given a proper reply from the opposite party’s higher officials to whom mails were sent by the complainant and inspite of calling the toll free numbers so as to know the status of complaint registered.  They were totally unaware of the complaint and try to evade the same thereby informing the complainant to raise the new complaint.  The opposite party wisely evaded all the phone calls and e-mails and giving some frivolous excuses.  The complainant  submitted that the opposite party has cheated him under the pretext of quality machine and finally ending up with defective one.  Hence the complainant sent  legal notice through his counsel on 06.11.2017 for refund of entire amount paid towards purchase of said machine along with interest within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, wherein the opposite party failed to respond to the same.  The  opposite party has committed unfair trade practice in selling the machine by representing that the machine was good and also committed deficiency of service by evading service requests for the new machine.  Hence the complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The opposite party M/s. Aqua Pure Plus Pvt. Ltd. is reputed concern in the field of water purifier all over Tamilnadu and an ISO 9001 certified company.  In the current case the opposite party denies all the averments contained in the complaint and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically ours.  The opposite  party admits the purchase of new machine with one year warranty by the complainant by denies all other allegations.  The opposite party denies the averments stated in para 1,2 and 3 to be false and untrue.  He contents the averments contained in para 4 stating that the complainant had called the opposite party office regarding the complaint is vague and that there is no specific evidence proved.  The opposite party further submits that para 5,6 & 7 are false and untrue wherein there was no wilful neglect and criminal intention as alleged by the complainant.  The opposite party’s company being reputed concern and an ISO 9001 certified company strictly denies para 9 of the complaint.  He also alleges the direct demand on the refund of machine cost without stating any specific manufacturing defect in the machine is not maintainable.  Admitting the fact that the machine being covered by a warranty for one year for any manufacturing defect the company cannot directly refund the amount which is against the terms and conditions agreed by the complainant and denies averments contained in para 12 & 13 with regard to financial loss and mental agony incurred by the complainant. The opposite party submits that cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission.   Hence the opposite party prays for dismissal of complaint.

 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party as stated in the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any refund and compensation as prayed?  To what extent?

The complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on his side.The opposite party has filed proof affidavit and no document was marked on his side.

4.POINT NO :1

                    Complainant has filed written argument.  Heard the complainant counsels.  No oral arguments by opposite party.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  The complainant has purchased water purifier from opposite party on 02.10.2017 vide invoice no. 48709 on full payment of invoice is marked as Ex.A1 which is admitted by opposite party.  It is alleged by the complainant that from the day of inception and installation the said purifier did not work well.  The complainant made several attempts to informed the opposite party regarding the hardship he was facing due to the disfunction of newly installed purifier.  He had made several phone calls and e-mails requesting the opposite party to rectify the defects on 19.10.2017, 21.10.2017, 24.10.2017, 28.10.2017 and 05.11.2017 proof of which is marked as Ex.A3 but no effort has been taken by the opposite party to rectify the machine. The complainant further stated that subsequent calls made to enquire about the status of complaint were not answered and the opposite party evaded the same without any reply.  The complainant was further directed to file a new complaint unnecessary.  The opposite party has also ignored the legal notice sent by the complainant on 06.11.2017 marked as Ex.A2.

              5. The customer has made several phone calls and mails to the opposite party regarding non-working machine on several days between 19.10.2017 – 05.11.2017 which were not answered or responded. The complainant has been instructed to furnish the complaint to the Head Office which were evaded by the higher officials as well. The non rectification of defects after several E-mail and requests is a proof to show that the opposite party has caused the deficiency of service. The opposite party has not replied to the mails sent by the complainant.

             6. The opposite party in their written version raises that there is no cause of action arose to file this complaint before this Hon’ble Commission.  The complainant had purchased the water purifier from the opposite party at No.16/48, Ground Floor, VVV Koil Street, Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040 as per Ex. A1 where the cause of action for the complaint arose is well within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  

              7. The opposite party in the written version admitted that the defects in the machine was during the warranty period of one year and hence the opposite party ought to have rectified the defect pointed out in the machine by the complainant but the same was done by the opposite party.  The averment of the opposite party that the complainant itself is not clear as to the nature of the machine in defect is unsustainable since it is found from Ex.A3 the complainant had faced a lot of issues due to lack of service of the opposite party and requested to take the product and return the money to him.  Therefore there is no merits in the contention of the opposite party the complainant cannot demand refund of machine amount without stating specific manufacturing defect.  According to the complainant the machine was not working properly from the date of installation and created new problem everyday due to poor quality and standard of the machine. The complainant counsel also relied upon decision reported in Piyush Patwari vs Kent Ro Systems FA/407/2010-kolkata-State Consumer disputes Redressal commission, West Bengal dated:23.12.2010 and also Swastik Enterprises vs Sri Bhabaninath Kapoor - Orissa State Disputes Redressal Commission(OSCDRC)-Appeal no. 5/1999 of Case No. 106/1998 dated:19.06.2001. The facts in the above said citations are similar to the facts of this case. Hence, the act of the opposite party in not rectifying the defects in the water purifier even after several request and E-mails  and the conduct of the opposite party in not effecting service to the machines shown within the warranty period clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

8. Point No.2.

                Based on findings given in the Point.No.1 there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party and the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 10,500/- towards the cost of water purifier and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.10,500/-  towards the cost of the water purifier and also pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.  The above said amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

           Dictated  by the Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by usin the open Commission on this the 15^th day of July 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                          PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	02.10.2017	Invoice cum receipt
Ex.A2	06.11.2017	Legal notice.
Ex.A3	19.10.2017	E-Mails.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                          -NIL-

 

MEMBER – I                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC.NO.08/2018, Dated:15.07.2022, Order Pronounced,           In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.10,500/-  towards the cost of the water purifier and also pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.  The above said amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.   MEMBER – I               PRESIDENT