Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/129/2015

M/s.Anil Oommen - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s.Aqua Pure Plus Private Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Jayaprakash

17 May 2016

ORDER

                                                           Complaint presented on  :  29.07.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  17.05.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 17^th  DAY OF MAY 2016

 

C.C.NO.129/2015

 

 

Anil Oommen, M/62,

S/o.Late K.C.Oommen,

AG 102, River View Colony,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai 600 040.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	The Managing Director, M/s. Aqua Pure Plus Private Limited, 16/48, Ground Floor, V.V.V.Koil Street, Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.
	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 25.08.2015

Counsel for Complainant                     : Mr.S.Jayaprakash

Counsel for opposite party                      : Ex parte

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant entered with the Opposite Party Annual maintenance Contract (AMC) on 06.01.2015 for a period of one year i.e: 06.01.2015 to 06.01.2016 and paid the maintenance fee of Rs. 3,500/-. The Opposite Party issued the receipt for the said period on receipt of money. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party to check the Aqua Guard Water Filter regularly on periodical basis. On 27.03.2015 the Opposite Party service man dismantled the Aqua Guard Unit for service and his representative issued service report No.51081 stating that the work is pending and went away and assuring that he would visit again and service the unit. However he never turned up inspite of several phone calls made by the Complainant.  The Complainant was forced to purchase water at a cost of Rs.60/- daily 2 cans (each cans 20 Ltrs) and thereby the Complainant incurred a sum of Rs.7,200 for the last 4 months. Failure to service the dismantled product by the Opposite Party by his men is a clear case of negligence rendered by him. Therefore the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.06.2015 to the Opposite Party and even after that he did not rectify the product. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for refund of AMC amount of Rs.16,500/- towards cost of the product and a sum of Rs.7,200/- for incurring purchase of water can from outside and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

          2. The Opposite Party representative M.Murugan appeared and inspite of sufficient time given to him, he did not file written version and hence the Opposite Party was set Ex-parte for non filing of written version.

          3. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and also filed written arguments. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. Oral arguments also heard.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

5. POINT:1

          The case of the Complainant is that he was having a Water Filter  Aqua Guard in his  home for the purpose of drinking water and the Opposite Party representative approached the Complainant and informed him that he will provide Annual Maintenance for the product on contract basis  for a period of one year and on the assurance of the Opposite Party he also entered into Ex.A1,  AMC dated 06.01.2015 for the period of one year from 06.01.2015 to 06.01.2016 by paying the maintenance fee of Rs.3,500/- and the Opposite Party was called  by the Complainant to service the product, the Opposite Party  service representative came on 27.03.2015 under the pretext of repairing and servicing the filter, he dismantled  the unit and issued Ex.A3 service report mentioning that the work is pending and went away and  assuring that  he would visit again and rectify the product and however he did not turn up even after several calls made by the Complainant and therefore the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

          6. There is no contra evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party. Ex.A1 is the proof of the AMC entered by the Complainant with the Opposite Party on payment of consideration. Ex.A2 is the service report issued by the Opposite Party’s service man for changing carbon and membrane. Ex.A3 is also a service report and in that report in the work column written as pending and left the place without rectifying the unit.  Even, after several calls made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party he did not turn up for  rectifying  the same. Therefore Ex.A3 service report clearly proves that the Opposite Party failed to rectify the product during the AMC period and establishes that the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service in providing service to the Complainant.

7. POINT:2

          The Opposite Party failed to provide service within 6 months from the date of entering the AMC. Therefore the request of the Complainant to refund the AMC amount of Rs.3,500/- is justified. The Opposite Party service representative dismantled the unit and without setting right the product issued Ex.A3 service report that the work is pending and never come forward to rectify the unit proves that the Complainant is entitled for the cost of product of Rs.16,500/- is accepted.  The Complainant also incurred a sum of Rs.7,200/- towards purchase of water can for 4 months and such amount he is entitled from the Opposite Party. Due to the deficiency committed by the Opposite Party the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for such mental agony it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.10,000/-  towards compensation  besides a sum of Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The Complainant is entitled for reliefs as indicated above.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is ordered to refund the AMC amount of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and  five hundred  only) to the Complainant, pay  a sum of Rs.16,500/- (Rupees sixteen thousand and five hundred only) towards cost of the product, pay a sum of Rs.7,200/- (Rupees seven thousand and two hundred only) towards  expenses for purchase of water can and also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.2,000/-  (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 17^th day of May 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 06.01.2015                   Receipt for payment of AMC issued by the

                                                Opposite Party in Receipt No. SPICR 45916

 

Ex.A2 dated 06.01.2015                   Service Report issued by the Opposite Party in

                                                Receipt No.50595

 

Ex.A3 dated27.03.2015          Service Report issued by the Opposite Party in

                                                Receipt No.51081

 

Ex.A4 dated 23.06.2015                   Legal Notice issued by the counsel for

                                                Complainant’s

 

Ex.A5 dated 24.06.2015                   Acknowledgement to the above

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT