Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/231/2015

R.Chandra sekaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Venus Ro System - Opp.Party(s)

G.Veerabathiran

23 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 25.05.2015

Date of Reservation      : 01.08.2022

Date of Order               : 23.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.231 /2015

TUESDAY, THE 23^rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

R. Chandrasekaran,

No.1, First floor,

R.N. Nambiyar Lane,

Rangarajapuram,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai - 600 024.                                                                                                                                                    ... Complainant                 

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. Venus Ro System,

   Rep. by its owner K. Ramesh,

   No.103/2, Lake View Road,

   4^th Street,

   Postal Colony,

   West Mambalam,

   Chennai - 600 033.

 

2.K. Rajesh,

   Service Manager,

   M/s. Venus Ro System,

   No.103/2, Lake View Road,

   4^th Street, Postal Colony,

   West Mambalam,

   Chennai - 600 033.

 

3.M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

   B1/B2, 701, Marathan Nextgen Innova,

   Off: Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

   Lower Parel,

   Mumbai – 400 013.                                                                                                                                         ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. G. Veerabathiran

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. Subbu Ranga Bharathi

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to return the amount of Rs.13,990/- and direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for all the mental agony and hardship unflicted on the Complainant by the opposite parties damages for the mental torture and agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 The Complainant had purchased one Aquaguard Reviva Model from the first Opposite Party on 23.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.13,990/- under a Bill No.2675. The Complainant made the bill payment by way of issuing Cheque No.270192, State Bank of India, Rangarajapuram Branch, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024, and the same was also encashed by the first Opposite Party. The Complainant states that the Aquaguard delivered by the first Opposite Party got repaired on 8.4.2015 and a complaint was made with the second Opposite Party, who is the Service Manager of the first Opposite Party. The second Opposite Party take note of the Aquaguard water purifier under complained No.81042832. A formal visit shown assured to make it in good condition as early as possible. But the second Opposite Party never turned up. Inspite of repeated representation and request both the opposite parties showing only deaf ears. It is illegal and unlawful. Due to the lethargic attitude of both the opposite parties in prolonging this matter without any solution by making it ready, the Complainant got mental torture a mental agony. Hence the Complainant issued a legal notice on 24.04.2015 to both the opposite parties. The 1^st Opposite Party received the legal notice by acknowledging the receipt of legal notice but no response. But the legal notice of issued to the second Opposite Party returned as "Not claimed".  The opposite parties were deceptive at every stage and hence the Complainant enabled to claim a sum of Rs.13,990/- for the unfair trade practice adopted by them. The Complainant disappointed with the acts of the opposite parties issued them the legal notice dated 24.04.2015 calling upon the opposite parties return the amount of Rs. 13,990/- which was paid to the party of the first Opposite Party and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as liquidated.  The representation and actively and promise the second Opposite Party were false from day on all such acts of the opposite parties have caused the Complainant immense mental pain, mental agony and hardship. The promises and assurances robed the Complainant earnings and almost his precious time which cannot be compensated in any manner. This enormous mental agony tremendously will continue to cause the Complainant much pain however, the Complainant rationally restricts his claim. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party and adopted by Opposite Parties 1 and 3,  in brief is as follows:-

 The 2^nd Opposite Party is working as a Service Manager with the Eureka Forbes Limited and 1st the Opposite Party is a Franchisee of M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited. The role of the 1^st Opposite Party is to sell the products of the M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited and it has no role to provide after sales service to the customers including the Complainant. No Complainant can be made out against the employees. If at all the Complainant has any grievance, he has to work out his remedy against the company not the employees.   The 1^st Opposite Party is not a manufacturer of these products. The 1^st Opposite Party is only a marketer and Sell the products to the customers. Since the manufacturer of these product is not included as a party in this complaint. This complaint liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the employee of Eureka Forbes Limited and he is no way responsible for the allegations mentioned by the Complainant. The Complainant ought to have filed a case against only the company. Therefore, complaint ought to have been dismissed against the 2nd Opposite Party for mis joinder of party. The Complainant has suppressed the material facts before this Hon'ble Forum and came with all sorts of false allegations against the Opposite Party to defame the reputation of the company.  At the time of installation of the Water Purifier, it was demonstrated and fully explained to the Complainant about the use of the machine and the instruction manual was provided wherein instructions have been spelt out and advised him to strictly follow the instruction given in the user manual for best usage and even a small mistake/faw would result in variation of the output water. Further, the technician also explained what are all the parts covered under warranty. The machine was installed on 26.06.2015. The machine was working in good condition at the time of installation. Thereafter, the mandatory free service was given to the Complainant without any default or delay. On 17.10.2014 1^st service was done and 11.03.2014 the second service provided to the machine and cleaned the filters of the machine. At that time, the service person advised the Complainant to replace the Sediment Cartridge [Filter] and Carbon Cartridge [Filter] are chocked (chocked means, it is full of dust particles and sediments] and also told him, these filters will not be covered under warranty. These filters are subject to wear and tear. It has to be replaced periodically. Sediment Cartridge and Carbon Cartridge will cost Rs. 700/-. He advised him to replace the filters at the earliest. After few days, again the Complainant made complaint that the machine is not working properly. Yet again, the service technician attended his complaint and examined the machine. He reiterated that the Sediment Cartridge and Carbon Cartridge are chocked and that needs to be replaced. The service person again told him that the Sediment Cartridge and Carbon Cartridge has to be replaced periodically and the Complainant has to pay the cost the RO Cartridge and the Sediment Cartridge and it will not be covered under warranty. But the Complainant was insisted for the replacement of the New Water Purifier. As the cartridges are not included in the warranty, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that machine cannot be replaced, only Sediment Cartridge and Carbon Cartridge has to be replaced. The Complainant refused to pay for the replacement of Sediment Cartridge and Carbon Cartridge. The Opposite Party again attended the Complainant's complaint on 16.04.2015. Even on that day the machine was working. The service technician yet again cleaned the cartridges of the machine and informed him that the machine is working and asked him replace the Sediment Cartridge and Carbon Cartridge. Therefore, only the cartridges are to be replaced for which the Complainant has to make the payment of Rs 700/- The facts being so, the Complainant bent upon the facts to suit his convenience and making false allegations. The Opposite Party put the Complainant to strict proof of the same. On receipt of legal notice, the second Opposite Party visited his house and told the Complainant that the service can be provided to him and the cartridges has to be replaced. None of his complaints were left unattended. Mr. Hemanth Kumar, the senior service manager made phone call to the Complainant and tried to resolve the issue. But the Complainant has not allowed the Opposite Party's senior manager to visit. The Complainant denied to co-operate with the Opposite Party To maintain cordial relationship, Mr. Hemanth Kumar offered to provide the Sediment Cartridge and Carbon Cartridge to the Complainant at free of cost. But the Complainant arbitrarily demanded for the new water purifier.  Some problems may occur by the usage of the customer and also depends upon the nature and contents of the water used by the customer. The Cartridges has to be replaced periodically depends upon the nature of the water. If the content of the water is having high-hardness, chlorine mixture in the water, contamination of sewageor the or drainage water in the inputs of the water, the same will affect output quality and quantity of the water In these cases, the carbon Cartridge and the Sediment Cartridge will be chocked after 10 months. There  is  no  negligence  or  deficiency of

service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant has not proved by producing convincing material or documents or expert opinion to substantiate his allegations. It is further submitted that the non-reply to the notice is neither wilful nor wanton.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5  were marked.          The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-2  were marked.   

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

        It is undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased Aquaguard Reviva Model from the 1^st Opposite Party on 23.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.13,990/-.

        The dispute arose when the above said product purchased by the Complainant got repaired on 08.04.2015 during the warranty period and the same was not attended by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties inspite of complaint made under reference No.81042832, by the Complainant.

        From the perusal of the Exhibits marked on either side, the Complainant made under reference No.81042832 by the Complainant, though the same was admitted by the Opposite Parties, as found in Ex.B-2, being the customer complaint and service details, the said document could not be relied upon since it does not contain the particulars of the 1^st Opposite Party name nor it has been signed by the 2^nd Opposite Party or any of the authorised signatory of the 1^st Opposite Party and hence Ex.B-2 is not acceptable. Further in the written version it was mentioned that on 16.04.2015 the Complainant’s complaint was attended, the caridges in the water purifier to be replaced, at cost of Rs.700/-, which the Complainant refused to pay, is not at all acceptable and sustainable, if at all the 1^st Opposite Party and 2^nd Opposite Parties would have attended the complaint as mentioned above, nothing prevented the 1^st Opposite Party  and 2^nd Opposite Parties in responding to the legal notice dated 24.04.2015 sent to the 1^st Opposite Party and 2^nd Opposite Party, inspite of receipt of the said notice by the 2^nd Opposite Party, which were marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-5. Hence, we hold that the 1^st to 3^rd Opposite Parties had acted lethargically and negligently by not attending the complaint of the Complainant made under reference No.81040832 in respect of the subject product. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the 1^st Opposite Party to 3^rd Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and thereby caused serious mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos: 2 and 3:-

        As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are liable to refund a sum of Rs.13,990/- being the cost of Aquaguard Reviva Water Purifier and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony along with cost of Rs.300/-, to the Complainant. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered. 

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to return a sum of Rs.13,990/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Only) being the cost of Aquaguard Reviva water Purifier and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency in service and  mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards cost, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing compliance  the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 23^rd of August 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	23.06.2014	Order form cum receipt with warranty terms and condition
Ex.A2	26.06.2014	Aquaguard installation form issued by the Service Manager to the Complainant
Ex.A3	24.04.2015	Lawyer Notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	28.04.2015	Returned cover from the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A5	29.04.2015	Legal notice served by the 1st Opposite Party acknowledgement

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	-	Copy of warranty terms and condition
Ex.B2	-	Copy of customer complaint and service details

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT