D.O.F:18/08/2018
D.O.O:30/09/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.141/2018
Dated this, the 30th day of September 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Abdul Salam aged 48 yrs
S/o K Muhammedkunhi
K.M.K House, Vannathikkanam
Kallar, Rajapuram, Kasaragod District
Represented PH Holder
Abdul Latheef. A.C aged 51 yrs
S/o Ubaid.L.K, Arinchira House,
Arrekara, Kallamchira, P.O Balal
Kasaragod District. : Complainant
(Adv: P. Latheesh)
And
1. Mrs. Yasir Muhammed
Manager Sles
Purifying System and Technics
Azad Road, Kaloor, Cochin – 17
: Opposite Parties
2. Mrs. Thomas
Service Manager
Purifying System and Technics
Azad Road, Kaloor, Cochin – 17
(Adv: Srikanta Shetty OP 1 & 2)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a water purifying system from Opposite party on 23/06/2017. The opposite party told that its price is Rs. 1,80,000/- only and offered discounted rate Rs. 1,62,000/-. Complainant remitted Rs. 80,000/- through Federal Bank Rajapuram Branch by cheque Rs. 6,000/- in each towards other materials but still bill is not issued. The purifying system did not work and taken up for repairs. The Opposite party replied that spare parts worth Rs. 35,000/- to be paid. The said amount to be paid by complainant though guarantee was promised. The complainant approached the Opposite party on 18/01/2018 for refilling the water purifier. The complainant sent lawyer notice claiming compensation but returned unclaimed. The complainant claims Rs. 2,50,000/- for damages and litigation costs.
2. The Opposite party appeared and filed written version. Their case is that bills are issued for payment. Ext B1 to B3 tax invoices are produced. They are ready and willing to service the water purifier covered by warranty Ext B4. Purifier is not defective no negligence . complainant did not follow instructions of , opposite Party if cost is paid ready to replace materials, there is no denial of service, not entitled to relief.
4. The Opposite Party admitted, that complainant purchased the water purifier from the Opposite party installed to the complainant. It is 500 litter/hour capacity and is scalant and properly to be maintained. There is negligence by complainant. The complainant did not followed instructions and hence can not claim. If Complainant is ready to pay cost for replacement the Opposite party is ready to service the unit. And denied any service deficiency and prayed that complaint to be dismissed.
5. The complainant and Opposite party filed chief affidavit and cross examined. Ext A1 to A7 document marked from the side of complainant. They are, Ext A1 purchase order Ext A2 bank statement, Ext A3 tax invoice, Ext A4 tax invoice, Ext A5 lawyer notice, Ext A6 notice returned and Ext A7 AD. Ext B1 to B4 documents marked from Opposite party side, Ext B1 tax invoice, Ext B2 tax invoice, Ext B3 tax invoice, Ext B4 instruction manual cum warranty card.
6. Following points arise for considerations.
a) Whether water purifier is defective and in view of warranty, claim for value of spare parts for replacement is sustainable as per law?
b) Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite party in declining to replace the defective parts free of costs and whether complainant entitled for compensation and if so for what reliefs?
7. In brief , the case of the complainant is that he purchased a water purifier for Rs. 1,62,000/- vide tax invoices A1 to A3 having warranty of one year. Acopy of the warranty card is B4. However, the water purifier started giving trouble as it was dispensing very little water and it stopped working. He informed the company about the problem, services personal visited his premises, but basic problem was not resolved Opposite party informed need of replacement of parts costing of Rs. 35,000/- to be borne by complainant.
8. The company offered service of repair on payment not though covered by warranty. He also served the legal notice upon the Opposite party but they refused to provide the service without charge. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint that the complainant submitted that complaint was made well before the expiry of warranty period but the denial of the company to honour the warranty amount to unfair trade practice issuance of terms and conditions of the warranty card was never contested by the company. The company refused to repair unit without any charges.
9. The Opposite party admitted regarding the purchase of the water purifier. It has been further stated that as per warranty card, the water purifier had a warranty of one year but the consumable parts of the said purifier were under warranty but on payment of spare parts value. It has been further stated that there was no deficiency in service negligence in to unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party.
10. The core question that falls for considerations before us is whether there is any deficiency in service and complainant is entitled to compensation and its quantum.
It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased water purifier for a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as is evident from invoices and admitted by the Opposite party. The Opposite party placed on received warranty card before the Commission. From this document , it is proved that the warranty of the said product was for one year. It is evident from the record that the claim was made within warranty period. The Opposite party fairly admitted the warranty but the consumable parts of the disputed water purifier were under warranty for 6 months from the date of installation. Besides, despite service of water purifier, it stopped working leading to the inconvenience to the complainant. The Opposite party did not take suitable steps to case the defaulter but insisted for payment during warranty period. Thus there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Opposite party No:1 and 2
11. With regard to the compensation is concerned, we are of the view that the compensation to be granted by the Commission is adequate and reasonable. The complainant did not seek replacement of product with new one nor its value but restricts the compensation for the sufferings covered. There is no pleadings or evidence water purifier is repaired or not till date or still working or kept idle without any use.
12. The NCDRC in Sivandar Kumar Tyagi Vs Jagat Nursing Home reported in IV (2010)CPJ 199 has held that compensation has to be reasonable and not in any way to enrich the consumer.
13. Their lordship in the Supreme Court in the matter of Balram Prasad (Dr) Advance medical care and Research Institute Ltd. Dr. Baidymath Haldar, Dr. Kunrl saha and other and reported in IV(2013) CPJ I SC have laid down the principle of just compensation.
14. In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite party No:1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/-to complainant towards the amount required for replacement of defective spare parts. The Opposite party No:1 and 2 also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to complainant which is found reasonable as damages and compensation for physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and also Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Purchase order
A2- Bank Statements
A3- Tax Invoice
A4- Tax Invoice
A5- lawyer notice
A6- Copy of registered lawyer notice to OP No:2
A7- Postal acknowledgment.
B1- Tax invoice Dt: 08/07/2017
B2- Tax invoice Dt: 08/07/2017
B3- Tax invoice Dt:20/07/2017
B4- Warranty card.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
