DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of October 2012
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
: Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of Filing : 04/04/20112
CC No.60/2012
Komalavally,
Gokulam, Vidyanagar,
Thanav, Olavakkode,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.Krishnakumar.K)
Vs
Yabu Thomas,
Manager,
Livin Style,
Shalom, Kanakath Towers,
West Fort Road, Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv.Unni Thomas)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
Complainant has purchased a water purifier namely CLOUDS WATER PURIFIER PLATINUM of worth Rs.13,974.47 from the opposite party on 27/5/2010. She had used the water purifier for only 2 months. After 2 months the purifier stopped working and contacted the showroom for service, but they didn’t came for service. After repeated request they have taken the purifier for service to their showroom. And till this day they have not returned the same after the service. Even after repeated request they have not returned the purifier after due service. Hence the complainant requested them to replace the purifier with new one. But the opposite party not ready to do the same. Since after these 8 months the opposite party has not returned the purifier after due service and not ready to replace which caused much mental agony. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to
1. Replace the purifier with a new one and
2. Pay Rs.20,000/- as damages and mental agony
3. Cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. Opposite party admitted that complainant had purchased a water purifier on 27/5/10 from their shop. Also the price of the purifier was admitted by the opposite party. But the opposite party stated that the complainant has paid only Rs.5,000/- on 10/7/10 as the price of the water purifier. The complainant promised to pay the balance amount within one month. But the complainant has not paid the balance amount to the opposite party. Rs.8990/- as the balance amount will be paid by the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant has already purchased other utensils from the opposite party before the purchase of purifier. So the opposite party has given the water purifier to the complainant on credit. The opposite party demanded the balance amount to the complainant on several times. But the complainant failed to pay the balance amount. Thereafter the complainant directly given complaint to the clouds company without the instruction of the opposite party. The opposite party had demanded the balance amount to the complainant through phone. But the complainant has not informed the defects of the water purifier. Complainant has informed the defects of water purifier in first time to the opposite party on August 2011. Then the staff of opposite party inspected the purifier and saw the pipe in Malampuzha water connection connected directly to the purifier. The water in the pipe connection, not not came regularly to the piper. So the complainant has not got water through purifier. According to the opposite party the purifier has no defects. So the opposite party has not replaced the water purifier. But the complainant demanded the opposite party to service the water purifier and they had taken the purifier. The opposite party demanded balance amount after servicing the purifier. Then the complainant stated that the balance amount will be paid at the time of return the purifier. According to the opposite party the purifier has no defects and working in good condition. The complainant has not demanded to return the water purifier to opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The Clouds company is the manufacturer of water purifier and the complainant has not made the company as a party. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint.
Both parties filed their affidavit. Ext.A1 marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite party. Complainant was examined as PW1. Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issue No.1 & 2
We perused relevant documents on record. As per Ext.A1 the complainant purchased a clouds water purifier platinum from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.13,990/-. According to opposite party the complainant paid only Rs.5,000/- as the cost of the water purifier. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite party to show that balance amount not paid by the complainant. At the time of cross examination complainant deposed that the opposite party given receipt for an amount of Rs.5,000/- firstly. There after paid the balance amount and given the receipt marked as Ext.A1. According to the opposite party Ext.A1 is not the receipt and it is only a retail invoice. The opposite party filed application to call for the bill to the water purifier. Application allowed. Then complainant produced the copy of Ext.A1 and submitted that original produced along with the complaint. The opposite party has not produced the contradictory evidence. As per Ext.A1 the complainant has paid Rs.13,990/- as the price of the water purifier. The copy of the bill was not produced by the opposite party. The opposite party stated that there was no defects to the water purifier. But the opposite party has not taken expert commission to prove that no defects in the water purifier. Now the water purifier is in the custody of opposite party. The complainant stated that she had used the purifier only 2 months. According to the opposite party on 2011 August the complainant has informed the defects of the purifier.
As per Ext.A1 the complainant brought the water purifier on 27/5/2010. At the time of cross examination complainant deposed that she demanded Rs.20,000/- as compensation to purchase the bottled water and went to opposite party in several times for repairing the water purifier. Usually the people needed bottled water to drink.
Admittedly the water purifier was in the custody of opposite party. Both parties had not taken steps to prove the defects of the water purifier. So the 1st prayer of the complainant was not considered. According to the opposite party balance amount was not paid by the complainant. But the opposite party has not produced evidence to show the balance amount. The complainant stated that Ext.A1 issued at the time of giving entire amount. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. Moreover the opposite party has not taken any legal steps to recover the balance amount. As per Ext.A1 the complainant purchased the water purifier on 27/05/2010. The complainant stated that the water purifier returned to opposite party for repairing on August 2011. The opposite party also admitted that water purifier taken on August 2011. The opposite party has not produced evidence to show that they were ready to return the purifier and the purifier has no defects.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint partly allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of October 2012.
Sd/-
Seena.H,
President
Sd/-
Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K,
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Bill for water purifier purchased issued by opposite party dtd.27/5/10
Complainant examined
PW1 –Komalavalli.M.A
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite part
Nil
Cost
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings
