This is a discussion on Medho Enviro within the Water Filter forums, part of the Non Electric Items category; C. C. No. 186 OF 2009. Date of filing: 15.09.2009. Between : G. Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Nagaiah, Resident of GF.3, ...
- 02-19-2010, 10:26 AM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
C. C. No. 186 OF 2009.
Date of filing: 15.09.2009.
G. Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Nagaiah, Resident of GF.3, Gummadi Towers, Addagirivari Street, Petrol Bunk Road, Ramavarappadu, Krishna District.
1. Medho Enviro Engineers, Rep: by Manager cum Authorized Signatory, House
No.13-6-439/1A/52 & 53, Balajinagar, Gudimalkapur, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad.
2. The Manager of the Authorized Signatory, Medho Enviro Engineers, Flat No.401,
Sri Ramgopala Residency, Upstairs of Reliance Fresh, Prakasam Road,
….. Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 08.01..2010 in the presence of Sri C. Ravi Kumar, advocate for complainant, and opposite parties 1 and 2 are called absent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following :
O R D E R
This complaint is under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
That the complainant purchased Table Top Water Purifier for an amount of Rs.9,500/- from the 2nd opposite party on 08.03.2009. There after the authorized person of the 1st opposite party installed the same in the house of the complainant. (Gummadi Towers, Ramavarappadu) on 09.03.2009. The said purifier worked for about three months from March 2009 to June 2009. There after, failed to work rather than to say purified the water so, the complainant informed the same to the 2nd opposite party on that the 2nd opposite party visited the complainant’s house and the machine and found as the failure of the adopter, solenoid valve, sediment filter and that the defect was defeated within the warranty period. The authorized person who inspected table top water purifier stated to the complainant that the duplicated parts was used to the purified at the time of installation and later rectified the water purifier by placing new adopter, solenoid valve, sediment filter by taking an amount of Rs.950/- and Rs.200/- towards material and service charges vide invoice No.501 dated 30.06.2009. The facts of the opposite parties violated the terms and conditions of the guarantee and the conditions framed there under so, the acts clearly falls within the purview of deficiency in service so, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint notices were sent to the opposite parties but they failed to receive hence, publication was order and published yet, the opposite parties failed to contest the matter.
3. Complainant filed affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
I) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
II) To what relief the complainant is entitled?
6. Point No.1: As could be seen from the material on hand the complainant purchased table top water purifier from the opposite parties vide Ex.A1. There after the water purifier gave trouble so, he intimated the same to the opposite parties who inturn repaired and charged Rs.1150/- vide Ex.A2. In this regard the plea of the complainant is that, that the machine is having warranty period and that because of the acts of the agents/mechanics of the opposite parties the machine gave trouble and that the same was intimated by another mechanic and rectified by receiving consideration but infact the defects has to be rectified freely within the warranty period and that the opposite parties failed to rectify the same. Ofcourse, the same was not denied by the opposite parties as they failed to contest the matter infact warranty period is six months and that the machine gave trouble within the warranty period. Further, the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties vide Ex.A3 and the opposite parties received under Ex.A4 and A5 but they failed to comply and reply so, the acts of the opposite parties falls within the purview of deficiency in service and so the complainant is entitled to the reliefs and accordingly this point is answered.
7. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed an the opposite parties 1 and 2 (Jointly and severally) are directed to pay an amount of Rs.950/- (Rupees nine hundred and fifty) only to the complainant and do pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees on thousand) only towards costs. Rest of the claims if any claimed by the complainant are rejected. Time for compliance one month.Regards,
Click here to Become Premium Member