DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the  27^th day of  March 2024

                                                                   Filed on:

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                               Member

C C No.126/ 2023

COMPLAINANT

Shaiju S, Company Name: Aqua Care Systems, S/o.: KP Sukumaran, Sree Shylam,House No. 11, Mudickal PO, Perumbavoor , Pin Code-683547

Vs.

Opposite Party

Balaji Sriratchagan, Managing Director Water DNA Pvt. Ltd,103, 1, Perambur Red Hills High Rd, Pachaiappan Colony, Roja Nagar, Lakshmipuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 099.

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was lodged under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the complainant who bought four Hydranautics Membrane CPA3 units (used in RO water filtration plants) from Water DNA Pvt. Ltd in Chennai on November 5, 2022. The complainant discovered that the membranes supplied by Water DNA were counterfeit after verification with Hydranautics Company revealed that the serial numbers and QR codes on the membranes were fake. Despite attempts to resolve the issue, Water DNA Pvt. Ltd refused to accept the return of the counterfeit membranes or to refund the purchase amount. As a result, the complainant faced significant delays and financial losses in completing their RO plant project. The complainant is seeking a return of the counterfeit goods and a refund of Rs. 1,46,320.00 paid for them. Additionally, they are requesting compensation for mental anguish and harassment amounting to Rs.30,000.00, citing a total loss of Rs.4.5 lakhs due to the inability to complete the RO plant project on time because of the counterfeit membranes.

2)       Notice

             The notice to the opposite party was sent by the commission. However, despite accepting the notice, the opposite party did not file a version, and as a result, they are set ex parte.

   3)  Evidence

          The complainants submitted an ex-parte proof affidavit along with five documents, marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-5.

• Exhibit A1: Copy of the invoice provided by Water DNA Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, indicating the sale of four Hydranautics Membranes for Rs. 1,46,320.00, dated 5th November 2022.
• Exhibit A2: Copy of the Duplicate Equipment Report.
• Exhibit A3: Copy of the Duplicate Equipment with Serial Number and QR SCAN Code.
• Exhibit A4: Copy of the email sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
• Exhibit A5: Copy of the invoice of the parcel booking.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)        Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?

iii)      If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

iv)      Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)       The issues mentioned above are considered together and are        answered as follows:

           In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.  A copy of the invoice provided by Water DNA Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, indicating the sale of four Hydranautics Membranes for Rs. 1,46,320.00, dated 5th November 2022. The receipt evidencing payment to the opposite party (Exhibits A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.

            The complainant initiated legal action to seek redress for the deficiencies in service and the engagement in unfair trade practices by the opposite parity.

             The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.

             The opposite parity conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them.  Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).

         We have carefully heard the submission made at length by the learned Counsel representing the complainant and have also considered the entire evidence on record.

          The complainant has alleged a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by Water DNA Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, in supplying counterfeit Hydranautics Membrane CPA3 units used in RO water filtration plants.

1. Deficiency in Service and Negligence

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 2(7) defines a consumer, and Section 2(42) defines a deficiency in service. The complainant, having purchased Hydranautics Membrane CPA3 units for consideration, falls within the definition of a consumer. The supply of counterfeit products by Water DNA Pvt. Ltd constitutes a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under Sections 2(10) and 2(47) of the Act.

The sale of defective goods or the rendering of deficient services qualifies as a deficiency in service. Further, liable for negligence in service, underscores the liability of the service provider for any lapses.

The evidence, including Exhibit A1 (Invoice), Exhibit A2 (Duplicate Equipment Report), and Exhibit A3 (Duplicate Equipment with Serial Number and QR SCAN Code), conclusively proves that the goods supplied were counterfeit. The failure of the opposite party to respond to the complaint or to participate in the proceedings, despite having been duly notified, lends further credence to the complainant's claims.

2. Liability of the Opposite Party

The opposite party's act of supplying counterfeit goods and their refusal to refund the purchase amount constitutes not only a deficiency in service but also an act of unfair trade practice, causing financial loss and mental anguish to the complainant.

The delivery of goods that fail to meet the agreed-upon quality constitutes a deficiency in service. When the goods in question are counterfeit, the seller's liability extends beyond mere service deficiency to encompass fraud against the consumer. This judgment aims to rectify the injustices experienced by the complainant and simultaneously acts as a preventive measure against the distribution of counterfeit products and deficiencies in service within the marketplace.

            Considering the evidence, the complainant's unchallenged contentions, and the serious deficiency in service caused by the opposite party, we find the issues in favour of the complainant. The opposite party's actions amount to unfair trade practices and deficient services, deceiving and enriching themselves with the complainant's money and that of the public.

            We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite party.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:

1. The Opposite Party shall refund the complainant the sum of                            ₹1,46,320.00 (Rupees One Lakh Forty-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Only) being the cost of the counterfeit membranes as evidenced by Exhibit A-1 (Invoice).
2. The Opposite Party shall pay ₹70,000 (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation. This amount is awarded for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, as well as for the mental agony and physical hardships endured by the complainant.
3. The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant ₹20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings.

The Opposite Party is mandated to comply with the directives mentioned above within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under points I and II will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (22-02-2023) until the date of full payment realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 27^th day of March 2024.

Sd/-                  

        D.B.Binu, President

          Sd/-

                   V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                Sd/-                  

                                                                             Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

Date of despatch   ::

By Hand      ::        By Post

Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

• Exhibit A1: Copy of the invoice provided by Water DNA Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, indicating the sale of four Hydranautics Membranes for Rs. 1,46,320.00, dated 5th November 2022.
• Exhibit A2: Copy of the Duplicate Equipment Report.
• Exhibit A3: Copy of the Duplicate Equipment with Serial Number and QR SCAN Code.
• Exhibit A4: Copy of the email sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
• Exhibit A5: Copy of the invoice of the parcel booking.