Order No. 16 dt. 04/09/2017
The fact of the case according to the complainant, in brief, is that complainant on behalf of Bharat Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Sankrail, Howrah purchased an Iron Removal Plant (FRP) against a consideration of Rs.32,000/- on 29.11.2013 from M/s Zeolite India (P) Ltd. (Water Treatment Engineers), 209, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-700017 (o.p.) and the plant was installed on 30.11.2013 with demonstration of back washing and rinsing of the filter as per instruction of the operating manual provided by o.p. But the functioning of the Water Treatment Plant appeared to be deteriorated with emanating down black water and complainant informed about mal-functioning of the plant to the o.p over phone, time and again, to take action. The technician of the op came on 01.04.2014 for collection of water from the plant but no fruitful result had been rendered by the op subsequently. Complainant thereafter lodged a complaint to the complaint section of the op- company on 04.07.2014 and o.p’s representative attended this call with drawing attention of the complainant to be attentive enough regarding cleansing of the plant regularly to keep it running for the purpose. Thereafter, complaint faced the same problem once again and one of the user-member of the Housing Society was seriously ill.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with service of the water treatment plant complainant ultimately issued advocates notice by letter dtd 01.08.2004. O.P’s advocate shifted their burden upon the complainant stating malfunctioning of the plant was due to inadequate back washing of the plant by the complainant and their members. Complainant, once again, agitate the issue by advocate’s letter dated 09.09.2014 and gave ultimatum to replace the plant. But the op did not take any such step. Finding no solution and being aggrieved complainant filed the complaint on 17.11.2014 praying direction to replace the defective one with new one or to pay Rs.52,000/- for new plant including compensation for damage and cost, not mentioned specifically.
O.p. contested the case by submitting w/v. In the w/v Ld.lawyer of the o.p. argued that the iron removal plant was installed and commissioned satisfactorily. The technician then demonstrated the procedure of back wash and rinsing for proper maintenance of the iron removal plant as well as for getting quality water. After demonstration filtered water was collected and tested in the laboratory. The report was satisfactory and that was apprised to the complainant with the report of analysis of iron as 0.1 ppm. Ld lawyer of the op demanded that the operating manual and the warranty card were supplied on the date of installation of FRP i.e. 30.11.2013. In response to letter dated 05.08.2014 o.p. deputed Sri Dibakar Patra on 21.08.2014 who found the FRP detached from the main pipe. There was no defect but it was detached and unused for a longtime.
Ld. Lawyer of the complainant has argued that warranty card had not been handed over to the complainant who asked the op to inspect the malfunctioning of the plant for necessary action. But the technician of the company collected water on 01.04.2014 from the plant with receiving of Rs.300/- without any receipt. The claim of attending the plant by the technician of the company had been disputed by the complainant regarding servicing/maintenance.
Considering the submission of respective parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether there was any defect in the plant (FRP)?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p?
3 Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Complainant stated in the complaint petition that at the very beginning after installation of iron removal plant, it had been working well. The plant was installed on 30.11.2013, a sample of filtered water drawn after installation and commissioning of the plant was tested by the company in their laboratory and the said test report was forwarded to the complainant. At the time of installation, the report regarding water extracted out of it was positive. After receiving complaint, o.p’s men attended the plant on 21.05.2014 by backwashing but no testing report was placed.
The o.p-company had raised the point of irregular maintenance of the FRP only for which the plant had not been functioning properly .The defect as it appears to the complainant is not at all a defect in the eye of the o.p. This inference was best known to the op as the company was an engineering company in this field. O.p in their submission demanded that warranty card was handed over on the date of installation but complainant denied such handing over. Thus there was a wide gap regarding the responsibility of maintenance of the plant. By not providing the warranty card to the complainant, the propriety of demanding service for the plant had been debarred. Therefore, the complainant had been deprived of the privilege out of such propriety. Such lapse on the part of the op might be overlooked with the regular service of maintenance of the plant. But the op in practice had failed to provide the required no of service in the warranty period of one year or two. Rather the op avoided such responsibility by shifting their responsibility to the complainant. This is no doubt a deficiency in service.
Regular exercise keeps the body efficient, similarly cleansing of the filter at regular interval by back washing and rinsing makes the filter skilful and running. Without cleansing its efficiency will be diminished to non-operative and stagnant status which was put to the FRP especially by the op.
Iron (Fe) content in water of the area is 1.2 ppm, with installation of FRP, Fe content of the treated water had been decreased to 0.1 ppm. The two reports were prepared by the Zeolite (I) Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter the personnel of the company collected sample water from the FRP, off and on, but those were not surfaced by the company to the users. Users had been facing hazards whereas company remained silent in tackling those hazards in appropriate manner. Why science has not been applied by the scientific company, having high reputation in the market is not known.
According to the complainant if fluoride content in the water of that area is the issue as raised by the op then the responsibility of the problem developed in the FRP due to fluoride remain in water of the area is with the o.p. as they tested the water analytically and gave report to purchase the plant.
Considering the submission & arguments of both the parties and the evidences in record we are in the view that complainant suffered immense hazard out of the plant which in turn deteriorated health condition of the members of the housing society due to the deficiency in service on the part of the op-company. Complainant is, therefore, entitled to get relief with compensation and cost. Thus, all points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered
that the case no.695 /2014 is allowed on contest against o.p with cost. The o.p is directed to pay Rs.32,000/- (Rupees thirty-two thousand) to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order i.d an interest @ 10% p.a shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is directed to return back the used FRP, retained by the society, to the op at the time of receiving the amount awarded in favour of the complainant by this order.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
