Complaint filed on: 12-07-2017 Disposed on: 20-11-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.69/2017
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
G.V.Shobha,
W/o. K.M.Chandrashekharaiah,
Resident of Sri Mallikarjuna Nilaya,
4th Cross, Vidyanagar, Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.Srinivasa Murthy.N.H)
V/s
Opposite party:-
The Manager,
Classic Marketing,
Shop No.12, 1st Floor,
Taluk Panchayath,
Shopping complex,
MG Road, Tumakuru
(In-person)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP to pay water purifier price of Rs.17,490=00 and to pay damages of Rs.20,000=00 and Rs.10,000=00 as other damages along with interest and grant such other relief as prayed in the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
On 28-10-2016 the complainant had purchased a Water Purifier Dr.Aquaguard Magna from the OP shop vide bill No.4494 for Rs.17,490=00. At the time of purchase, the OP had assured that, the said product is working, it takes 30 to 45 minutes to store 7 liter tank and the wastage of water would be 1:3 ratio only.
The complainant further submitted that, from the date of installation of the water purifies, it takes around 2 to 3 hours for fill up the storage of seven liters waters and as such wastage of water ratio is about 1:10.
The complainant further submitted that, the said problem was brought to the notice of the OP through telephone, but the OP has not set-right the said problem of the water purifier. The OP has not furnished the free service as per the guarantee card. This act of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental shock and agony and also facing lot of troubles in daily usage of the said product. On 15-6-2016, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the OP calling upon him to set-right the problem of the water purifier, but the OP has refused to receive the same and the said notice has been returned. Hence, the preset complaint is filed.
3. After service of the notice, the OP has appeared in-person and filed written arguments, contending interalia as under;
The OP has admitted, the purchase of the water purifier from OP on 28-10-2016 and other averments made in the complaint are denied as false.
The OP further contended that, the said water purifier having RO (Reverse Osmosis) technology. The said system purifies the water and removed the wastage water from the system. The complainant had approached the OP for the said problems and the OP technician visited the complainant’s house and informed the complainant that, water tank is not cleaned and water tank is having dirty water and suggested the complainant to adopt the water filter outside the machine. But the complainant had not obliged the OP’s suggestion. If the complainant is ready to pay the filter fee, the OP will give free service to the complainant’s water filter. The OP further submits that, installation of the outside filter do not come free of cost
The OP further contented that, in the water purifier machine, the sediment filter is also blocked and the same was also not come within the warranty period. As per the terms and condition of the company, the consumable product is not come within the warranty period.
The OP further contended that, in the complaint, the complainant has not made the manufacturer as a party to this proceeding, but this OP is only dealer of the said product. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence and the OP has filed written arguments. The complainant has produced documents which were marked as Ex-C1 to C5. The OP has produced warranty- terms and condition. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and then posted the cases for orders.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint, evidence and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, on 28-10-2016 the complainant had purchased a water purifier from the OP shop by paying an amount of Rs.17,490=00. The OP had assured that, seven liter tank to store water, it takes 30 to 45 minutes and wastage water would be 1:3 ratio only. The main allegation of the complainant is that, from the day of purchase, the said product was not working properly. It takes 2 to 3 hours to purify a seven liter of water and wastage water ratio is 1:10. To substantiate his contention, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence or technical export opinion before this forum. Hence, the allegations of the complainant cannot be accepted.
8. On the other hand, the OP has established that, OPs technician visited the complainant’s house and informed the complainant that, water is not cleaned and the sediment filter is blocked and suggested to replace the filter to set-right the problem. But the complainant insists the OP to replace the filter at free of cost. The OP further submitted that, the filter comes under the consumable items and it is not covered under the warranty. In this regard, the OP has produced warranty card.
9. On perusal of the Warranty card, the Terms and Conditions No.5 (d) wherein it is stated that, “Consumable items like the Sediment Cartridge and Activated Carbon that are subject to normal wear and tear are not covered by this warranty”.
10. As per the terms and condition, no warranty for consumable product, when such being the case, this forum do not have any power to interfere with the matter, when there is no warranty for consumable product. Further to disbelieve the OP evidence, the complainant has not produced any expert opinion before the forum. Hence, the material evidence placed by the OP is more trust worthy. Hence, we hold that, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP by placing believable material evidence. Accordingly we answer this point in the negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Forum on this, the 20th day of November 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
