D.O.F:13/11/2017
D.O.O:16/11/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.221/2017
Dated this, the 16th day of November 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Hassainar.K aged 51 years
S/o Abdulla
Kattampalli, Karakunnu : Complainant
P.O Keekan, Kasaragod District
(Adv: Latheesh.P)
And
The Manager
Global Water Systems
Thavakkara Complex : Opposite Party
Thavakkara, Kannur, Pin – 670002
(Adv: Asha Viswan)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
The brief facts in this case is that complainant has purchased a water purifier on 08/08/2012 from Opposite Party who is the manufacturer and dealer of water purifier on 08/08/2012. As per the stipulation of Opposite Party, the water purifier has to be refilled after 4 years. When the complainant approached Opposite Party for refilling the water purifier Opposite Party charged an amount of Rs. 17,000/-. Thereafter complainant approached Opposite Party on several occasions for refilling water purifier but Opposite Party evaded the complainant on such occasions. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on Opposite Party as he charged for refilling of water purifier. The act of Opposite Party caused severe mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. The complainant caused to send a lawyer notice to Opposite Party demanding compensation for mental agony and loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Opposite Party was neither replied to the legal notice nor complied the demand. Hence this complaint filed seeking compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with Rs. 17,000/- as loss incurred.
Opposite Party filed version stating that complainant purchased water purifier from the authorized dealer cum service provides of Opposite Party named “smart solutions”. Opposite Party admitted one year warranty also. Opposite Party further admitted that he received a lawyer notice from complainant and on receiving the same, he directly contacted the complainant and the he had got convinced the fact that it was a mistake from his part. Complainant purchased “Bio-drops whole home Purifier” from authorized dealer and wherein Opposite Party is the manufacturer. After the purchase Opposite Party produced services to the complainant during correct intervals of time within the warranty period but the complainant had the habit of not paying service charges to the technicians and now the dealer fed up with complainant’s attitude and refused to provide free services. On 03/02/2017 complaint contacted Opposite Party for refilling of 2 plants and had done the same for an amount of Rs. 17,000/- and in July when the service technicians after providing service when asked payment complainant detained both of them in his house and took them to the police station where one of his relative was a police officer, who threatened the technicians and sent them back without payment. After the incident Opposite Party contacted the complainant and informed that without paying charges Opposite Party is not bound to give services. After that the complainant made this frivolous complaint against Opposite Party. Complainant suppressed material facts about the purchase of the product from dealer and the complaint itself is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The cause of action stated in the complaint is totally false and is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents produced are marked as Ext A1 to A5. Complainant was cross examined as Pw1. Opposite Party produced Ext B1. Heard both parties. Ext A1 is cash receipt of issued by Opposite Party Global water systems Rs. 17,000/- Dated 13/02/2017, Ext A2 is credit bill, Ext A3 is complaint visit report, Ext A4 is lawyer notice dated 04/08/2017 and Ext A5 is Postal AD.
Issues raised for consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party in providing after sale service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
Considering issue numbers 1 and 2 together for convenience we perused the affidavit and documents filed by both parties and version filed by Opposite Party. the grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a water purifier system which was manufactured by Opposite Party on 08/08/2012 and using it after five years of purchase complainant approached Opposite Party to refill the water purifier system on 13/02/2017 complainant in his cross examination admitted that Opposite Parties men visited the complainant’s house and provide free service till 03/02/2017. The Opposite Party provided after sales service to the complainant even after warranty period. How to use the system is explained in the service manual. But the complainant failed to produce the aforesaid document before this commission to prove his allegation against Opposite Party. Moreover complainant had not taken any steps to include dealer as an Opposite Party. We perused the affidavit and documents produced by both parties and we are of opinion that complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. We cannot insist Opposite Party to provide free service to the complainant after warranty period. Hence this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Receipts Dt: 13/02/2017
A2- Tax invoice
A3-complaint visit report
A4- Lawyer notice
A5- Acknowledgment card
B1- Complaint visit report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Hassainar.K
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
