THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 22 of 2020

 

Sri Sumit Chandra Nag,

S/O- Sri Sunil Chandra Nag,

Melaghar Thakur Para,

Near Red Lotus Club,

District- Sepahijala,

P.O. & P.S.  Melaghar. .….................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

The Senior General Manager,

Blue Star Ltd. Kasturi Buildings,

Mohan T Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, 

Mumbai- 400020, P.O. Churchgar. ....................Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Indrajit Bhowmik,

  Sri Kumar Sankar Sarma,

  Sri Debal Saha, 

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.P.  : Smt. Sumi Datta,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  14.02.2022

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that the complainant booked one 'Water purifier' having items details as  Blue Star Stella ST4BHCO1 8.2 litre RO+ UV Water purifier(Black/Silver) for an amount of Rs.32,799/- through online mode bearing number 27B0084332500271, on 26.10.2018 customer ID -800000058652. The purifier was delivered to the complainant's address on 4th November, 2018. It was installed by the agent situated at Agartala being appointed by Blue Star Ltd. After one and half months from the date of installation  of the said machine, it began to malfunctioned. It was observed that the first one and half month service was satisfactory as contended in the manual. However, after one and half month the water purifier ceased to function properly. On several times complainant communicated the problem to the customer care number. But it was adamantly ignored inspite of several efforts. Complainant also made communication through online with the O.P. about the defective water purifier and asked to replace by a new one as it was within the warranty period but no effort was taken from the side of the O.P. Blue Star Ltd. to get the problem resolved except sending messages. Then suddenly complainant received 2 pages report having its caption as Preventive maintenance Service report ''bearing its checklist no.86350 Service provider no. LM01491-00'' Service provider name ''MECHATRON'' which was a false assertion and solely fabricated to cheat the complainant. It is also stated by the complainant that the O.P. is escaping its legal duty towards the complainant. The complainant waited for a considerable period of time again and again and different ways tried to get contact over telephone and also by sending messages to Blue Star Ltd. then complainant send legal Notice dated 11.11.2019 to the Senior General Manager Blue Star Ltd., Kasturi Buildings, Mohan T. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020 through registered post. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this complaint before this Commission for getting relief.

 

2. After getting notice from this Commission the O.P. appeared and filed written statement by denying all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. In the written statement it is stated by the O.P. that complainant faced some issues with the working of the water purifier and hence contacted the O.P. in the month of October, 2019. Upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the O.P. registered the complaint and assigned a specialist technician from the local service associate namely ESSA Mechantron to check the said water purifier of the complainant. The technician visited the house of the complainant and checked the water purifier of the complainant and found issues in the membrane and told the complainant that it would be replaced by the O.P. The technician informed the O.P. about the issues faced by the complainant and the parts of the water purifier that would be required to be replaced for resolving the issues. The O.P. found that the said parts membrane and power control board of Blue Star Stella water Purifier were not in stock. Hence, the O.P. placed order for the said parts and informed the complainant that the parts would be replaced immediately upon receipt of the same by the O.P. It was informed by the O.P. to the complainant that the delivery of the said parts would take some time and assured the complainant that the products would be replaced immediately upon delivery. The O.P. received the parts on November, 2019 and immediately they delivered it to the local service associate for necessary replacement. But the complainant did not cooperate and did not allow the representative to replace and affix the new parts in the water purifier and demanded to replace the entire water purifier with a new one. The O.P. further stated that they never denied any sales service to the complainant. The O.P. stated that the complainant filed a baseless allegation against the O.P. which is liable to b dismissed. It is also stated by the O.P. that burden to prove manufacturing defect in the said water purifier is on the complainant. The complainant did not provide any document or expert evidence to prove that the water purifier is not curable or there is any manufacturing defect. The claim of the complainant to replace the water purifier with a new one is not maintainable as the water purifier is not defective and the O.P. is ready to replace the parts of the water purifier that were having issues. Complainant with ulterior motive denied to replace the same and instead demanded the O.P. to replace the entire water purifier. Hence, deserves to be dismissed. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

The complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit as P.W. and also submitted some documents in support of his case. 

On the other hand, O.P. submitted examination in chief on affidavit of one witness namely Rounak Das, Manager Legal in Blue Start Ltd. Mumbai. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

Written argument were filed by both the parties. We have also heard arguments of both side at length. At the time of argument Learned counsel of the complainant submitted that the complainant had booked one ''Water purifier having item details as ''Bluestar Stella ST 4BSHCO 1'' 8.02 Litre R.O. + UV Water purifier for an amount of Rs.32,799/- only through online mode bearing Paytm mall order ID 6374001397, tax invoice, bill of supply, cash memo 27B0084332500271 dated 26.10.2018 customer ID -800 00 00 58652. Accordingly the booking order was confirmed and O.P. delivered the water purifier at the residential address of the complainant on 4th November 2018 and it was installed by the agent  of the O.P. situated at Agartala being appointed by the Bluestar Ltd. The installation charge are also duly paid as per demand of the agent so appointed by the Blue Star Ltd. After one and half month from the date of installation of the said machine it began to malfunctioning. And it was ceased to function properly and over telephone several times the complainant communicated the problem to the customer from phone number and also several messages sent to their service centre. But it was adamantly ignored inspite of several attempt made on the part of the complainant to get the problem solved arisen due to malfunctioning of the water purifier. Learned counsel further submitted that it was a defective water purifier. Within one year of warranty period it has become to malfunction. The complainant ultimately served legal notice upon the O.P. and after receiving the notice they also did not pay any heed which is nothing but negligence and deficiency on the part of the O.P. Learned counsel of the complainant further submitted that the complainant has been able to prove his case and he is entitled to get either replacement of the water purifier along with suitable compensation or to get back the price money of the water purifier along with interest and suitable compensation for mental agony, pain and sufferings. 

On the other hand Learned counsel of the O.P. submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. as the O.P. after getting the complaint they sent their technician to the house of the complainant and the technician after visiting the house of the complainant gave report that there was issue in the membrane, power control board  of the water purifier and complainant was informed that it would be replaced by the O.P. but complainant was adamant to replace the whole machine (water purifier) and it is beyond the terms and conditions of the warranty. Learned counsel of the O.P. also submitted that the complainant  does not approach with clean hands. There was no question of manufacturing defect in the water purifier. O.P. was ready to replace the parts of the water purifier which were having any issues. He further submits to dismiss the complaint.

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

Both the points are taken up together for convenience. We have carefully gone through the complaint, written version as well the written argument filed by both the parties. On perusal of the pleadings and evidences, we find that there is no dispute in respect of malfunctioning of the water purifier. It is also fact that the water purifier has began to malfunctioning after one and half month from the date of installation. We also found that the complainant made complaint in time to their service provider but the O.P. did not take necessary steps in time. From the legal notice served upon the O.P. that is the Senior General Manager, Blue Star Ltd. Mumbai, we find that the Legal Notice was dated 11.11.2019 and after getting the notice the O.P. did not pay any heed for replacement of the water purifier.

 

7. On over all appreciation of the evidences adduced by the parties we find that the water purifier which in question was defective one for which it has began malfunctioning after one and half months of its installation. We also find that the O.P. did not take any care for replacement of the said water purifier which was found defective within its warranty period. 

 

8. Hence we  hold that the O.P. are guilty of deficiency of service. Accordingly, we order that the O.P. the Blue Star Ltd. either will replace the water purifier within 2(two) months from the date of judgment and also to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay further Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. In the alternative, if the water purifier is not replaced then the O.P. will refund the price money of the water purifier that is Rs.32,799/-along with above compensation money and litigation cost and complainant will hand over the set to the O.P. or his man. In case of failure of compliance of the order within 2(two) months then O.P. will pay in addition interest @ 9% P.A. on the price amount of the water purifier till realization. Thus the complaint is allowed.

Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs.

 

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.