DISTRICT CONSUMER D REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of FEBRUARY 2019
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member Date of filing: 20/06/2017
CC/98/2017
Krishnakumar,
S/o.Bhaskara Menon,
‘Souparnika’,
Karukodi, Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Adv.Manjula.R)
Vs
1. Jamal Sales Corporation,
Court Road, Palakkad.
Rep. by Proprietor,
(By Adv.T.P.O.Akbar Ali)
2. Eureka Forbes, 7th Floor,
Nexgen Marathon, Innova Gunpad Ravu,
Kadammarga Lovel Paral,
Mumbai – 400 013.
Rep. by Managing Director, - Opposite Parties
3. Eureka Forbes Limited,
HIG06 Near Income Tax Quarters,
Panampally Nagar, Kochi – 682 036.
Rep. by Managing Director,
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows.
On 31st March 2017 from the 1st Opposite party as per invoice No.B003992, TIN No:32090696392 complainant has purchased ‘E.F. Smart Water purifier’ for Rs.7,000/-, payment for which is made by card and on 05/04/2017 the said water purifier has been installed in his house. But from 05/04/2017 onwards though complainant and his family tried to use the said purifier, they could not. Consequently the complainant constantly complained to the service centre and the 1st opposite party, one or two persons came and checked the purifier and told the same is not working. Even after that complainant was giving complaints by e-mail and telephone to the opposite parties. According to the complainant neither the purifier worked nor to make enquiry about the same no person from the side of the opposite parties came. Complainant further states that before using this purifier, complainant has been using Eureka Forbes ‘Aquaguard’ classic water purifier for the last 15 years. On the basis of continuous complaint given by the complainant a telephone call came from 1st opposite party stating that a new machine has arrived which was promised to be installed in the place of the already installed water purifier for which an additional payment of Rs.1,200/- was also demanded from the complainant. But the complainant told the 1st opposite party that after installing the new water purifier only if it is working Rs.1,200/- would be paid by him. After that till this date, from the opposite parties no telephone call or e-mail came to the complainant. Complainant also pleads that as a user of water purifier for the last 15 years, due to the purchase of new purifier, to drink pure water, it has to be boiled for which more expenditure on gas has to be incurred. At the time of drinking boiled water because of the muddy colour of water coming from Malampuzha water connection many times complainant and his family have to go without drinking water. Complainant adds that for the last two months he and his family have to drink this muddy water and complainant has informed the defect of the said water purifier to the 1st opposite party but this opposite party has not given to the complainant new water purifier. According to the complainant, the aforesaid purifier has mechanical and manufacturing defects and hence for the above purifier a new purifier should be given to him; otherwise the above amount should be refunded. These were shown in his complaint sent to the 1st opposite party, but upto now new purifier has not been given to him. To purchase the above purifier, complainant spent Rs.7,000/- and for the acts of the opposite party complainant suffered health problem; also because of the non proper working of the water purifier, the opposite parties did not give the complainant a new one nor refunded the price paid for the purifier. Complainant has suffered a lot of financial difficulties, mental pain and health problems due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. Hence, complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum to direct the 1st opposite party to refund Rs.7,000/- (price of the said purifier) plus 12% interest and also to direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation for difficulties and mental agony suffered by the complainant and all the opposite parties to pay the cost of these proceedings.
The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties to file their versions. Notice to 2nd opposite party served, name called absent and was set ex-parte. Notice to 3rd opposite party issued but the same was returned stating left, his name was also called absent and was set ex-parte. No version was filed by 1st opposite party.
Complainant filed IA/21/18 to appoint an expert commission to examine the product and file a report and IA was allowed. Firstly Pradeep.C of NSS Engineering College, Palakkad was appointed an expert commissioner for examining the water purified and he files a report. Complainant filed IA/170/18 to set aside Pradeep’s report because the report is very brief and does not tell any of the defects of the water purifier, since 1st opposite party filed no counter to IA/170/18, IA was allowed. Complainant has filed IA/225/18 to appoint another expert commissioner to inspect the water purifier and file a report. Mr.Prabhuraj, Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Ammini College of Engineering, Palakkad was appointed as expert commissioner to examine the product and file a detailed report.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from his side. The second expert commission report was marked as Ext.C1. Complainant was also heard.
The following issues are considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. If so, the relief and cost due from them to the complainant?
Issues 1 & 2 in detail
On 31st March 2017 from the 1st opposite party as per invoice No.B003992 dated 31/03/2017 complainant has purchased an “E.F.Smart Water purifier” for Rs.7,000/- which is clear from Ext.A1 which also shows card payment for the purchase of the water purifier and also date of purchase of the same. Ext.A2 is an e-mail letter sent on April 9, 2017 and April 12, 2017 by the complainant to the opposite party for taking necessary remedial action immediately. Ext.A3 shows warranty particulars of Aquaguard classic water purifier purchased by the complainant and installed on 23/11/2000 and different ways to install the same. As per the Memo dated 03/02/2018, expert panel was submitted by complainant’s counsel to this Forum and from this panel Mr.Pradeep.C, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Electronics, NSS College of Engineering, Palakkad was appointed an expert commissioner to inspect the disputed water purifier purchased by the Complainant on 31st March 2017.
Petition was filed by complainant’s counsel for the complainant to set aside Pradeep expert commission report on the following grounds. The expert commission filed a report stating that the purifier will work with sufficiently high water pressure. His report is confined to a paragraph with no reasoning regarding arrival of final decision. The main reason regarding difference in water pressure. What is the minimum pressure is not stated? What was the pressure available is also not stated? Is there any prescribed water pressure is also not stated in the report. The statement that dripping slowly from the outlet is also against facts. Before serving a clean chit by saying that the machine is working satisfactory, no reason is assigned by the commissioner. Hence the report is against facts and is against a dual reason for defect. Hence this commission report may be set aside and the complainant’s counsel submits a fresh panel of experts from which this Forum appointed Mr.Prabhuraj, Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department, Ammini College of Engineering, Palakkad to examine the disputed water purifier of the complainant and file a detailed report. He sent a notice of his inspection to the complainant and also opposite parties. At the time of his inspection on 14th November, 2018 at 5 PM, complainant’s counsel, opposite parties representative Mr.Hakeem(Franchisee Manager, Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kochi) and Mr.Vysakh(Group Leader, Eureka Forbes, Mumbai) were present. The final report dated 15th November, 2018 filed by the expert commissioner Mr.Prabhuraj.C.V is given below.
“I am the commissioner appointed by the Honourable Redressal Forum on 5th November 2018. I had send the notice of my inspection to the complainant and opposite parties that I am visiting the complainant house for inspecting the water purifier on 14th November 2018 at 5.00 PM.
At the time of my visit on 14th November 2018 at 5.00 PM, complainant, complainant’s lawyer, Respondent representative Mr.Hakkim(Franchisee Manager, Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kochi) and Mr.Visakh(Group leader, Eureka Forbes, Mumbai) were present.
At their presence I had inspected the water purifier. Initially I was noted down the specification of the item and its physical appearance. Details are given below.
Model: AS-SMART UV
Serial No: 2223208264004358
Manufacturing Date: 08/2016
Operating specification: 230V, 50HZ
Physical Appearance
The water purifier was attached on the wall inside the kitchen. Its inlet is connected to the sink tap with flexible tube. The water purifier looks new and it was mounted on the wall as per the manufacturer’s specification. Since the main water tank is situated on the main slab of the ground floor, water pressure of not less than 29.42 kPa will obtain at the inlet of the water purifier. This pressure is more than enough for the satisfactory working of the purifier.
After the inspection of the physical appearance I had switched on the water purifier and waited for one minute starting time. Just after one minute I was observed dripping flow from the outlet spout of the purifier. I was waited more than 10 minutes, but there was no improvement in the flow rate happened, the flow was still dripping. As per the specification from the manufacturer, the flow should be continuous and it should deliver 3 litre per minute. The dripping flow during the entire time of my inspection is due to the manufacturing defect of the water purifier.
In order to identify the defected component I was removed the screws and dismantled the carbon filters. I was given flow through each carbon filters separately. By doing so I was observed that one of the carbon filters was clogged with dust and it blocked the water flow. I believed that the carbon filter blocking was happened during the first installation of the water purifier.
I am concluding this inspection report by stating that the water purifier has mechanical and manufacturing defect and it was happened during the first installation by the Eureka Forbes representative.”
From the affidavits and documentary evidences and a comprehensive inspection report marked as Ext.C1 submitted by Prabhuraj.C.V, expert commissioner we understand that the water purifier purchased by the complainant on March 31, 2017 suffers from mechanical and manufacturing defects because of which the said water purifier is not working satisfactorily. We, therefore, view that the subject water purifier should be replaced by a new one of the same brand or make or the invoice price of the water purifier in question paid by the complainant should be refunded to him. We also understand that a lot of mental agony and financial difficulties are seen suffered by the complainant and his family because of the defective water purifier supplied by the opposite parties which has also affected their health by drinking muddy non pure Malampuzha water. We also view that complainant has also suffered a lot of expenditure on gas for boiling the muddy impure Malampuzha water and that complainant and his family have also to go without Malampuzha water due to improper working of the disputed defective water purifier. Although the complainant has informed the opposite parties by telephone and e-mail several times, they did not replace the disputed water purifier nor refunded the invoice price of the same which amount to grave deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. All these are seen to have caused a lot of mental agony and financial difficulties to the complainant and his family. In the light of these circumstances complaint is allowed.
We order the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 to be jointly and severally liable to replace the subject water purifier which is mechanically and in manufacturing defective by a new water purifier of the same make and brand, and install the same in a proper manner and demonstrate to the complainant enough water is coming after purification according to manufacturers specifications. If not possible to replace the existing water purifier by a new one of the same make or brand, the invoice price of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven thousand only) paid by the complainant for the disputed water purifier should be refunded to the complainant. We also order the opposite parties to be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) by way of cost of this proceedings incurred by the complainant.
We also order that once this order is executed, the complainant should return the defective water purifier in his possession to the 1st opposite party immediately.
This order shall be executed within one month from date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to get 9% interest p.a on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of February 2019.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Vat Invoice dated 31.03.2017 issued by 1st opposite party for the sale of
water purifier to the complainant.
Ext.A2 – E-mail letters sent to the opposite party on April, 9 and April 12, 2017
by the Complainant.
Ext.A3 – Warranty particulars of Aquaguard classic water purifier purchased by
the complainant and installed on 23/11/2000.
Commission Report
Ext.C1- Commissioner’s report dated 15/11/2018.(Original)
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost
Rs.4,000/-
