BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

    SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

                                                                            SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER                                     

Tuesday, 16^th February 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  82/ 2015

K. Rajani Kanth Reddy, S/o Raghurami Reddy,

aged 43 years, Flot No. 303, Anand Residency,

APHB Colony, Kadapa City, Kadapa District.                         ….. Complainant.  

Vs.   

1.  Sree Srinivasam, Rep. by its Proprietor,

     Authorized Distributors-cum-service point for Kent

     RO Systems Ltd., 21/388-4, Ganesh Complex, SFS Street,

     Kadapa City and District.

2.  Kent RO Systems Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director,

     Khasara No. 93, BantaKhedi (Village), Roorkee (Tehsil),

     Haridwar District, Uttarakhand – 247 668.                       …..Respondents.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 9-2-2016 in the presence of Sri                  K. Palakonda Rayudu, Advocate for complainant and respondents appeared as in persons and  upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.             The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents to replace the water purifier or refund cost of water purifier together with interest at 24% p.a.  to pay ₹ 50,000/- as compensation for damages and to pay ₹ 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 

2.             The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant purchased Kent Supreme Mineral RO water purifier on         31-7-2014 under invoice No. 133 bearing Sl. No. KR 140528687 for ₹ 17,000/- from 1^st respondent who is authorized distributor cum service point manufactured by 2^nd respondent. 1^st respondent also issued instructions hand book for installation, operation and maintenance pertaining to the 2^nd respondent along with warranty card.   2^nd respondent provided 24 months of warranty to the said water purifier and in case of defect the 1^st respondent promised to replace defective water purifier with new one.  It was installed on 16-8-2014 in the house of complainant.  But the water purifier was developed defects and started giving troubles to the complainant.  He approached 1^st respondent and informed the manufacturing defect of water purifier and complained that it was not properly working.  After verification the 1^st respondent rectified the defect.  But again it gave troubles for several times and informed the same to 1^st respondent and 1^st respondent used to rectify the problems by replacement of some parts without disclosing the actual problem in water purifier. However, the water purifier continuously giving trouble as water continuously coming out from waste water tube. The complainant approached the 1^st respondent on 15-5-2015 and 1^st respondent fixed another filter to the above said water purifier by charging ₹ 950/- vide invoice No. 2314, inspite of fixation of extra part the trouble was not solved and not rectified the defect.  The complainant demanded new water purifier in place of old one but not replaced, though promised by R1.   Finally on 24-7-2015 the complainant approached R1 and questioned him about failure of product and insisted for replace of water purifier with new one.  But R1 gave evasive replies and tried to blame to R2.  Vexed with the attitude of respondents having suffered both physically and mentally.  Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs. 

3.             Respondents 1 & 2 filed separate counters but with similar pleas.   

4.             Respondent No. 1 filed counter admitting the purchase of water purifier by the complainant but denied the other allegations regarding deficiency of service etc., and called upon the complainant to prove all of them.   It is further contended that the water purifier was purchased on 31-7-2014 with warranty of one year but not 24 months.  It is also mentioned in warranty book as warranty is only one year.   After installation of the purifier it was working properly but on the complaint of complainant the company mechanic replaced SMPS + Balls on 12-8-2014 and 23-8-2014 and explained the problems to the complainant.  On 31-3-2015 they replaced the RO filter without costs after that on the request of complainant they installed PF set by charging ₹ 950/- as the same is separate filter and not part of purifier.  After filing the complaint, 2^nd respondent deputed its service engineer to redress the grievance if any without prejudice to its legal rights and complainant disclosed the purifier is functioning well, but apprehending maintenance of purifier after warranty period, he requested to exchange the purifier with new one of different model and also agreed to pay differential amount of ₹ 5,000/-.  Later the service engineer approached the complainant to undertake replacement so as to close the case, the complainant declined so there is no deficiency of service on their part.  The other allegations in the complaint are not correct.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

5.             2^nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations regarding deficiency of service etc., called upon the complainant to prove all of them.  Further contended the warranty period to the water purifier is one year from   31-7-2014 and it expires on 30-7-2015 and on the last date of expiry of warranty period the complainant filed this complaint with ulterior motive and at no point of time manufacturer was informed about the grievance through toll free number after sale service.  There is no manufacturing defect or fault workmanship in the purifier.   Sales service have been provided by the service provider i.e. R1 on the demand of complainant and replace of service parts on payment as per warranty conditions.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service by the respondents.  After service by the service engineer the complainant disclosed that the purifier was functioning well. Apprehending maintenance of purifier will be costly affair after warranty period he requested to exchange the purifier with new one of different model and had also agreed to pay differential amount to   ₹ 5,000/-, but later declined and waiting for the Forums order.  In view of the above circumstances without prejudice to the legal rights and contentions aforesaid, the R2 at this stage also seeking indulgence of the Hon’ble forum to pass appropriate order, directing the complainant to allow engineer of R2 for overall repair of the purifier system on free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant or if the forum deemed fit to close the case, R2 is ready to replace disputed purifier with similar model without any cost and compensation, entirely on good will gesture or any other appropriate order. 

6.             On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents as pleaded by the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs against the respondents?
3. To what relief?

7.             No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.  But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A3 documents are marked and on behalf of the respondents Exs. B1 & B2 are marked.     

8.             Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record.   

9.             Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for complainant contended that the respondents admitted purchase of water purifier under Ex. A1 and rectifying certain defects after installation, but the trouble was not completely solved as the waste water was continuously coming from pipe of the water purifier. So there is inherent manufacturing defect of the goods supplied.  So he requested for replacement of product but the respondents were evading though promised.  Therefore, he filed complaint for replacement of water purifier or refund of costs of water purifier and is entitled for the claims. 

10.            Per contra respondents contended that they were prepared to replace the water purifier but without compensation and costs, entirely on goodwill gesture to maintain cordial relationship with customers. Therefore, appropriate order may be passed. 

11.            There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant purchased water purifier manufactured by R2 from R1, who is an authorized distributor under Ex. A1 invoice on 31-7-2015 and it was installed in the house of complainant by the authorized person of R2.  It is also not in dispute that the company provided one year warranty for water purifier from the date of its purchase.  Though the complainant contended that there was two years warranty from the date of purchase.  But as seen from Ex. B1 warranty card the guarantee was given only for one year.  However, according to the complainant the water purifier started giving trouble within one year after its installation and certain defects were rectified by the service engineer and some new parts was also fixed to the water purifier.  But still the problems persisted as waste water was coming continuously from pipe of water purifier.  The troubles arose in the water purifier purchased by the complainant from R1, after its installation and attending to rectify the problems by R2’s authorized person was also admitted by respondents 1 & 2.  So it is clear from the pleas of parties that within warranty period the water purifier purchased by the complainant from the respondents started giving troubles and not properly worked and sometimes the problems were rectified.  Again persisted, the complainant demanded for replacement of new one for the same model.  But somehow it was not fructified. Since it is established by the complainant that the water purifier started giving within 2 – 3 months after its purchase and even the respondents attended the troubles to rectify them and at last they agreed to provide new water purifier in place of old one but without compensation and without costs. The same has also been admitted by respondents 1 & 2 in their counter to replace new water purifier in place of old one entirely on goodwill gesture to maintain cordial relationship with customers.  Therefore, much discussion in this regard is not necessary and a direction may be given to the respondents to replace with new one water purifier in place of old one.  Thus we see there is deficiency of service on the part of respondents and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs replacement of water purifier with new one.  Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant. 

12.            Point No. 3.  In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally to replace with new water purifier in place of old one purchased under Ex. A1 invoice on 31-7-2014 by the complainant with necessary warranty of one year, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which refund the cost of water purifier with interest at 12% p.a. till realization.  The respondents shall pay costs of  ₹ 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant.  The rest of the claims of the complainant are dismissed.

        Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 16^th February 2016

MEMBER                              MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                   For Respondents :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex: A1         Invoice No.133, Dt. 31-7-2015 issued by 1^st respondent in favour of the

          Complainant.                 

Ex: A2         Instructions Hand Book including of Warranty card issued by the

                   respondents in favour of the complainant.

Ex: A3         In voice cum receipt no.2314 dt. 15-5-2015 issued by the 1^st  respondent

                   in favour of the complainant.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents.    

Ex:B1                P/c of  Warranty Card.

Ex:B2                P/c of Service Card.

MEMBER                                   MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1. Sri K. Palakonda Rayudu, Advocate for complainant  
2. Sree Srinivasam, Rep. by its Proprietor, Authorized Distributors-cum-service point for kent RO Systems Ltd., 21/388-4, Ganesh Complex, SFS Street, Kadapa City and District.
3. Kent RO Systems Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, 

Khasara No. 93, BantaKhedi (Village), Roorkee (Tehsil), Haridwar District, Uttarakhand – 247 668

B.V.P.