Complaint filed on: 15-04-2010<br /> Disposed on: 16-08-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.842/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 16th AUGUST 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Sri.S.Narayan, ‘JP’ 414,<br /> ITI layout behind,<br /> “The Club”, Near VMR Choultry,<br /> Mysore Road, Bangalore-39 <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> <br /> 1. The Managing Director,<br /> ZEOLITE (INDIA) PVT LTD,<br /> 344/7, NSC Bose Road,<br /> Kolkata -47<br /> 2. The Manager, <br /> Zeolite (India) Pvt. Ltd, <br /> 45, Venkateshwara Extn, <br /> Opp. ITI layout, New BEL Road,<br /> Bangalore-54 <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievances of the complainant against the OP in brief is that, believing brochure issued by the OP and their representative about the water analysis of his bore-well, purchased a water softener system for payment and the same is installed in his premises on 22-1-2009. That he started using the system from March-09 as per the guidelines and instruction given by OP. Thereafter, he had problems with the Ops IR filter that is during July 2009 and complained to Ops several times through E-mails and telephone calls. But the Ops did not bother to attend to his problems. When he told the OP of taking legal action against them, then the Ops repaired the system. That he faced the problems in the device since October 2009. Then he also informed the Ops telephonically on 15th, 20th of October and again on 13th November, but the OPs did not respond. Then he got issued a legal notice dated 11-12-2009. He received two replies from the counsel for the Ops who supplied equipment to make non-potable water to potable water within the parameter of chemical components for human consumption, the responsibility of the OP continues beyond warranty period. The complainant attributing deficiency in the service of the Ops in not keeping the system functioning has prayed for a direction to refund Rs.71,200/-, the cost of the system and for awarding compensation as claimed in the complaint with interest. <br /> <br /> 2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed common version admitting to had sold a RO system and installing it in the premises of the complainant during January 2009. After it was installed the complainant was to properly maintain the water treatment plant by back washing the iron removal filter and regeneration of the water softener. The entire process was demonstrated and explained to the complainant and was instructed to maintain accordingly. That on receipt of the complaint the technician immediately attended the plant on 12-7-2009 and found that within 4 months, performance had deteriorated due to poor maintenance, lack of adequate back washing of the iron removal filter and regeneration of the water softener. Stated it was due to the complainant not carrying the process of back washing of the plant and re-charging of softener. The complainant who had satisfied with the performance of the water filters plant had issued a completion certificate on 12-7-2009. Then the complainant made a complaint again on 25-7-2009 with a complaint of pump capacity was reduced and water colour was mud type was replaced. The complainant did not do adequate back washing of the plant as a result of which performance has again deteriorated. Then the complainant was also told to do back washing process thereafter again during August 2009, December 2009 the complainant gave a complaint then also they found very poor maintenance of the system and the water filter plant, and due to lack back washing water flow was reduced. OPs further denying the other allegations have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith complaint has produced a copy of order, copy of purchase bill with copy of warranty card and also produced copies of E-mail he sent, with copy of legal notice he got issued to the Ops. Ops have produced copies of completion certificate. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that Ops have caused deficiency in their service in not keeping the water filter plant system in working condition?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: The claim of the complainant that he has purchased a water filter system from the OP which is called as Water softener along with RO system that was installed in the premises of the complainant during January 2009 is admitted by the OP. The complainant complains, after he using the system from March 2009, he had problems in the IR filter of the system during July 2009 thereafter in October 2009. But the OP did not respond to rectify the problem and therefore attributed deficiency to Ops. Ops have admitted the complaints received from the complainant regarding some problem in the system but have stated that they after installing the system, they had demonstrated the use and maintenance of the system to the complainant and usual regular maintenance of the system they way it is to be maintained and carried out and thereby have denied any problem or defects in the system. Ops have further stated that the complainant was required to make regular and proper maintenance the water treatment plant by back washing of the iron removal filter and regeneration of the water softener. It is further stated by the Ops that on 22-7-2007, 25-7-2009 then during August 2009, December 2009 they received complaints and technician attended the problems during all these visits the technician noticed that the performance of the system had deteriorated due to poor maintenance, due to lack of adequate back washing of the iron removal and regeneration of the water softener is simple process has to be done by the complainant periodically. It do not require any technician or any expert and that is not required to be done all the time by the Ops alone. <br /> <br /> 7. The complainant in the complaint and also in the affidavit evidence has the made main allegation that he noticed is the problem with IR filter. Nowhere the complainant has pointed out to any defect in the entire system. The contention of the Ops and affidavit evidence filed by them prove that back water washing of the iron removal filter and regeneration of water softener would increase output and water quality and it was found satisfactory. The Ops have attributed that the problem pointed out by the complainant was due to his negligence in not maintaining the system and not because of their deficiency. The complainant as could be found from the affidavit evidence filed, he has simply got the contents of the complaint retyped and field in the form of affidavit evidence and has not made any attempt to controvert what the Ops have stated in their version and later stated in the affidavit evidence. Thus, the contention of the Ops that the complainant has not at all doing the maintenance of the system by back washing the filter and regeneration and that has caused problem in the system has remained un-contradicted. The complainant has also not made attempt to deny or dispute the defence of the Ops that at all stages the technician attended the problems and he noticed poor maintenance and inadequate water washing of the filter has also not been rebutted. Thus the counter allegation of the OP that poor maintenance of the equipment by the complainant is the cause for the problem and that do not require technician has remained un-contradicted. Thus the Ops have proved that there is no manufacturing defect or defective functioning of the system expect for the problem due in adequate maintenance by the complainant. As such we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in the service of the Ops and we therefore answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order:<br /> O R D E R<br /> Complaint is dismissed. Both the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br />