BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1598/2007 against C.C.No.383/2007, Dist.Forum-II,Hyderabad.
Between:
Golden Liquid Solutions ,
Rep. by Mr.Vikkrham Saraathy,
H.No.3-6-147/2/5, Himayatnagar,
Hyderabad. …Appellant/
Opp.party
And
V.S.Prabhakara Gupta,
S/o.V.L.Suryanarayana Sresty,
Aged 52 years, occ:Service,
R/o.Plot No.08, Madhupala Enclave,
Inside BHEL Enclave,
Bowenpally, Secunderabad-9. … Respondent
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.K.Yadagiri Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. P.Venkat Reddy
CORAM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.383/2007 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Water Softener and RO Water Purifier on 20.6.2005 from the opposite party. The capacity of the softener is based on the horse power of complainant’s borewell motor which is 1.5 H.P. The opposite party suggested the complainant to go for a 6000 LPH softener to take care of the load. The opposite party assured the complainant that final installation will be done after the complainant moves into his house. Accordingly the order was placed and the payments effected. The supply of the softener was done in June,2005 but the opposite party did not complete the installation till mid January,2006 and on the very first run of the motor and softener, the PVC pipes fixed to the softener broke into pieces and the opposite party took about two to three months to replace the PVC pipes and fittings and hence the pipes were continuously leaking. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party in not rectifying the defect, the complainant on 3.4.2006 requested the opposite party to take back the softener but the opposite party did not respond and the complainant got issued a legal notice on 12.11.2006 calling upon to refund the money and take back the softener for which also there was no response from the opposite party. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to take back the said non functional equipment and pay the amount with interest at 24% p.a. , to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh and to award costs.
The opposite party filed counter affidavit stating that on 20.6.2005 the complainant purchased one 6000 LPH Water Softener for Rs.27,000/- and also purchased one RO Water Purifier with one year warranty from the date of installation. The scope of supply of water softener pertains to providing ‘FRP Tank, Resin, Multi Port Valve, Brine Tank and its connector to the Multi port valve’ and only as per the instructions of the complainant the said water softener was installed to the complainant’s house on 21.6.2005. The PVC pipes fixed to the softener provided by the complainant is no way concerned with that of the opposite party. The water purifier was tested in the presence of the complainant and it has been functioning properly and the opposite party did not receive any complaint during the warranty period and after one year five months the complainant got issued a letter dt.12.11.2006 with baseless allegations. The opposite party contends that they have visited the house of the complainant but did not find any defects but found that there were sand particles coming in the water from the borewell and therefore the complainant was advised to install the sediment filtration which removes physical impurities like sand, mud and dust particles etc. otherwise there is possibility to block the valves of the said water softener. The opposite party submits that the water softener is free of defects and if there is any defects in PVC pipes, the opposite party is not responsible and the water softener is suitable for 1.5 H.P. motor if the bore water is free from all physical impurities like sand, mud, dust particles etc. and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and they are not liable to pay any amount.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A4 allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to replace the non functional equipment i.e. Water Softener and RO Water purifier and pay compensation of Rs.2000/- along with costs of Rs.1000/- to the complainant .
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The appellant/opposite party filed written arguments.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased one Water Softener and RO Water Purifier from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.27,000/- on 20.6.2005. It is the case of the complainant that the Water Softener of 6000 LPH was purchased by him on the advise of the opposite party that his borewell motor of 1.5 HP would be suitable to this capacity and during the very first run of the motor and softener, PVC pipes broke. The complainant’s case is that the PVC pipes were continuously leaking whenever the motor was operated and inspite of repeated requests by the complainant to the opposite party, no steps were taken by them to rectify the problem. Vexed with their attitude the complainant got issued a notice to the opposite party on 12.11.2006 calling upon them to pay back the money and take back the equipment within 15 days. It is the case of the appellant/opposite party that the District Forum has failed to see that the Water Softener and RO Water Purifier are two different items and that the complainant purchased one 6000 LPH Water Softener along with one RO Water Purifier for which there is one year warranty on both the systems. We observe from the record that there is no evidence on record to state that the PVC pipe broken only because of the water softener and likewise there is no documentary evidence on behalf of the opposite party also that their personnel visited the complainant’s house and found that there were sand particles coming in the water from the borewell and this was blocking the valves of the said system and that the said personnel did not find any defects in the said water softener system. It is apparent on the face of the record that when the equipment is under warranty the appellant/opposite party did not file a single job card to establish their case that their service personnel have visited the complainant’s house and noted the sand particles and also their observation that there were no defects in the water softener unit. When it is the contention of the opposite party that their personnel visited the complainant’s house and did not find any defects in the softener system and that they installed the said softener in the complainant’s premises on 21.6.2005 and since then it was successfully functioning they ought to have substantiated their contention with the affidavit and report of the said service personnel or a job card singed by the complainant. There is also no reply to the legal notice got issued by the complainant. While we hold that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party in neither rectifying the defect of Water Softener nor replacing the softener, we are of the considered view that the District Forum has erred in directing in replacement of both Water Softener and Water Purifier. Taking into consideration that the appellant/opposite party has taken the technical objection that the Water Softener and Purifier are two different items and the District Forum ordered for replacement of both but at the same time admit that the cost of the Water Softener is Rs.27,000/-, we modify the order of the District Forum setting aside the order of the District Forum with respect to the replacement of non functional equipment and direct the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.27,000/- paid towards equipment and the complainant shall return the equipment to the opposite party on receipt of this amount while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum.
In result order of the District Forum is modified directing the opposite party to refund Rs.27,000/- and take back the defective equipment from the complainant together with compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs of Rs.1000/- as ordered by the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
DT. 18.1.2010
Pm*
