IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                       BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                         PRESIDENT

                                     Tmt  Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                     MEMBER

F.A.NO.227/2017

(Against order in CC.NO.4/2015 on the file of the DCDRC, Perambalur)

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021  

Purit

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Unilever House, BD Sawant Marg                                M/s. L. Maithili Associates

Chakala, Andheri (East)                                                        Counsel for

Mumbai – 600 099                                                   Appellant / 3^rd Opposite party

                                                         Vs.

1.       Vellamuthu

S/o. Arumugam

Door No.22, 2^nd Cross                                          Served called absent

KK Nagar, Ariyalur – 621 713                                   1^st Respondent/ Complainant

2.       The Proprietor

M/s. Ramanathan Metal Stores

4A, Sabapathi Pillai Street                                     Served called absent            

Ariyalur 621 704

3.       M/s. Sai Karthick Agency

6/23, 515 Cross Ramalinga Nagar South                   (Formal party)

Trichy                              2^nd & 3^rd Respondents/ 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 3^rd opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.21.2.2017 in CC.No.4/2015.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

1.       This appeal has been filed as against the order dt.21.2.2017 in CC.No.4/2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Perambalur, directing the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party herein to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost on the ground of deficiency of service. 

2.       The parties herein will be referred to in the ranking as arrayed before the District Commission.

3.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:

           The 1^st Respondent/ complainant herein purchased a water purifier machine for a sum of Rs.15800/- on 21.1.2014, manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party.   He purchased the purifier through 1^st opposite party, and took delivery from the 2^nd opposite party.  The machine was installed at the residence of the complainant.  Since there was defect in the machine, the same was not functioning from the date of installation.  The defect was intimated to the 1^st opposite party.  They advised the complainant to contact the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Hence the complainant intimated the defects to the opposite parties 2 and 3.  They deputed a technician to rectify the repair.  Though the technician made an attempt to rectify the defect, it was not fully rectified.  Hence the same was informed to all the opposite parties.  But they assured that the problem would rectified or machine would be replaced within the warranty period.  But they have not done so.  Instead the opposite parties had insisted the complainant for replacing the kit alleged to have been malfunctioning.  But it is the duty of the  opposite parties to replace the machine, which was malfunctioning.  The water purifier was also covered by warranty.  Since the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not come forward to rectify the problem, the same had caused mental agony and suffering to the complainant.  The complainant was forced to purchase the drinking water at Rs.500/- per month.  He had spent so far a sum of Rs.6000/- towards drinking water.  Hence he had issued legal notice, for which the 1^st  opposite party gave evasive reply stating that the problem is not on their hands, but in the hands of opposite parties 2 and 3.  Hence the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for refund of the water purifier cost, alongwith compensation of RS.50000/- and cost. 

4.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the 3^rd opposite party, which was adopted by the opposite parties 2 and 3 as follows:

          It is true that the complainant had purchased Pureit Marvello RO from the 1^st opposite party, and took delivery from the 2^nd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party was servicing the device periodically.  Though the complainant had stated in his complaint that he had spent huge money for purchasing can water, he has failed to produce bills in support of this purchase.  Hence it is only an exaggerated statement.  On 3.6.2014, the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party had received a complaint from the complainant, and when they inspected the premises they replaced a Germ Kill Battery Kit on 23.1.2015 eventhough the warranty period is over.  Again on 9.1.2015 the opposite parties had replaced the necessary kit and the issue stands resolved completely.   The complainant had also withdrawn the legal notice sent by him on 1.12.2014.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part. 

5.       In order to prove the claim, on the side of the complainant 3 documents were filed, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A3 and two documents on the side of the 3^rd opposite party were marked as Ex.B1 and B2.  Two witnesses were examined on the side of the opposite party. 

6.       The District Commission, after analysing all the documents have come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation alongwith cost.  Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is filed by the 3^rd opposite party. 

7.       The learned counsel for the appellant would submit before this commission that the complainant had purchased a water purifier on 21.1.2014 for a sum of Rs.15800/-.  The warranty card is provided alongwith a detailed instruction manual at the time of installation.  The technicians also have explained the important usage, dos and don’ts and the requirement for replacement of the two consumables, viz. sediment filter and germ kill kit.  The water filter has a self contained indicator/advance warning system to notify the user of the requirement for replacement of the GKK / Pre-Sediment filter, once the same is saturated with the impurities.  If the GKK is not replaced at the time of appearance of notification, no water will be dispensed from the machine.  This design ensures that impure/unfiltered water can never be dispensed from the machine. 

8.       On complaint by the 1^st Respondent/ complainant on 3.6.2014, GKK 1 was changed free of cost, though the same would not be covered under the warranty.  This was happened due to the poor water quality at the complainant’s place. 

          On 18.11.2014 the complainant registered a complaint that the change GKK-2 light indicator was blinking red.  It means the GKK-2 has to be replaced.  However the complainant refused to purchase the same at a cost of Rs.3885/-, therefore it could not be done.  As per the warranty free replacement of consumables are not covered.  However the complainant tried his tactics to replace the same without paying cost, which was not accepted by the opposite parties.  Therefore, he issued a legal notice on 1.12.2014.  Though the officials   explained about the terms of the warranty, the complainant struck on to his stand and demanded free replacement.  Therefore, as a goodwill gesture GKK-2 had also been replaced free of cost.  The 1^st Respondent/ complainant was satisfied with the replacement of GKK-2, and the water purifier was in a good working condition and to his satisfaction.  In the meanwhile, the complainant had already caused legal notice and had filed the complaint before the District Commission, had voluntarily issued a letter dt.23.1.2015 as seen from Ex.B2, recording his satisfaction that the issue stood resolved and therefore the legal notice dt.1.12.2014 stood withdrawn and he had no further claims against the appellant herein.  Despite the above fact, the 1^st Respondent/ complainant had prosecuted the complaint.  Thus there is no deficiency of service on their part. 

9.       The 1^st Respondent/ complainant and the 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party though served, remained absent before this commission.  We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the records passed the following order:

          A perusal of the records would show that though the replacement of the accessories i.e. GKK-1 and GKK-2 would not be covered under the warranty, based on the request of the complainant, as a goodwill gesture, the same had been changed free of cost.  Eventhough as seen from Ex.B2, a letter of full satisfaction agreeing to withdraw the legal notice has been given by the complainant, before the District Commission, now it is the contention of the complainant that he did not understand the contents in the letter under Ex.B2, since it was drafted in English, only on request of the opposite party he had signed in Ex.B2.  Whereas, it is to be noted here that he had filed the present complaint in English only.  Therefore the above plea seems to be cooked up one. 

Further, though the complainant would submit that the machine has manufacturing defect, he had not taken any steps to prove the same by way of praying for a permission for inspection of the water purifier, by a technical person, to establish that the water purifier is still not working properly, and it has manufacturing defect.  As per submission of the complainant, the GKK-2 had been changed after one year, on indication by blinking of red light which, would establish that the machine had been regularly used by the complainant.  Therefore, the manufacturing defect was not proved, by the complainant through an tangible evidence.  Without appreciating the above facts, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and also had awarded a huge sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.3000/-. 

          In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, thus the order of the District Commission deserves to be set aside, accordingly set aside.

10.      In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Perambalur in CC.No.4/2015 dt.21.2.2017.  There is no order as to cost throughout.  

            Registry is directed to discharge the mandatory deposit, alongwith accrued interest in favour of the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party. 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                            R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT

INDEX : YES / NO