BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.47/2015

Dated this the 9^th day of November 2015.

Maria Joseph, son of Arouldass            

No.7, Gubert Nagar, 2^nd Cross Street

Puducherry.

                                                            ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. The Proprietor (Head Office)

    Aqua Pure Plus Pvt. Ltd.,    

    No.16/148, V.V. Koil Street

    Thiruvalluvar Nagar,  

    Thirumangalam

    Anna Nagar, Chennai – 4.

2. The Branch Manager        

    Aqua Pure Plus Pvt. Ltd. & Service Center

    No.53, Sengundar Street,   

    Orleanpet, Pondicherry.    

                                    .                                              ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A., B.L.,

           MEMBER

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                      :  Miss. Periyanayagi Mary Mani, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to replace the present water purifier with a new one together with fresh warranty;   
2. Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service;
3. Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and torture suffered by the complainant due to the negligent act of the opposite parties;
4. Direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint
5. Grant such other reliefs as this Forum may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant had purchased an Aqua Pure Plus Water Purifier for domestic usage bearing Model: Nano Silver on 30.5.2014 for Rs.9,000/- from Opposite Party No.2 by exchanging old one for Rs.4,000/- while its  actual price is Rs.13,000/- with warranty of one year from the date of purchase and it was worked for about four months, thereafter, it developed some technical problems and the purifier machine was not working.  The same was informed to second Opposite Party who came and rectified / serviced on 12.10.2014 by changing the purifier motor.  Again on 26.10.2014 the purifier gets leakage and the same was informed to second Opposite Party for several times and then it was rectified on 12.11.2014.  Again on 16.12.2014 the same problem occurred and this time, the second Opposite Party changed the spun after getting Rs.250/-.  Even then, the purifier gets the same problem and the same was informed to the second Opposite Party on 7.2.2015 who attended the purified on 21.03.2015, but the problem was not solved and the Opposite Party No.2 did not tell anything to the complainant.  It is further stated by the complainant that Opposite Party No.2 has not carried out this repairs to rectify the defects and since Opposite Party No.1 being the importer and seller and Opposite Party No.2 being the service center have also committed deficiency in service.  Further it is stated by the complainant that having sold a defective water purifier, the Opposite Party No.2 have made the complainant to suffer a lot as the problems reported in the water purifier and have been virtually denied of the water purifier service for about 11 months with defective product of the Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant was put into a great mental torture and mental strain due to the defective water purifier.  The complainant issue an Advocate Notice on 4.5.2015 to the Opposite Parties narrating all the above defects but till date nothing has been rectified.  Hence, this complaint.

3.         The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

4.         On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C11.

5.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

            The complainant purchased an Aqua Pure Plus Water Purifier for domestic usage bearing Model: Nano Silver on 30.5.2014 for valid consideration of Rs.9,000/- from Opposite Party No.2 by exchanging old one for Rs.4,000/- while its  actual price is Rs.13,000/- with warranty of one year from the date of purchase from the Branch Office of first Opposite Party situated at Pondicherry vide Ex.C1.  Hence, the complainant is the consumer.

7.         Point No.2:

            The complainant examined as CW1 and marked Exs.C1 to C11.  The Opposite Parties were duly served, but called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant submits that he purchased the Aqua Pure Plus Water Purifier on 30.5.3014 from first Opposite Party for Rs.9000/- by exchanging old one and the said Purifier is covered by 12 months warranty.  Ex.C1 is the  Office copy of Calculation Sheet.  The complainant further alleged that the purifier worked for about four months from the date of purchase and then it was not working and the same was set right by the Service Personnel of the Opposite Party No.2 on 12.10.2014 vide Ex.C2.  The complainant further alleged that again the purifier got leakage problem and the same was also rectified by the second Opposite Party on 26.10.2014 vide Ex.C3.  Since the leakage problem occurred frequently i.e. on 12.11.2014 and 16.12.2014,  the same was rectified by the second Opposite Party vide Exs.C4 and C5 respectively.  The complainant further alleged that since the leakage  continued the same was informed to the second Opposite Party who came and changed the spun on 3.2.2015 after getting a sum of Rs.250/- from the complainant vide Ex.C6.  But, again the purifier got the same problem  and the second Opposite Party serviced it on 7.2.2015 vide Ex.C7.  However, since the problem was continuing the same was attended by second Opposite Party on 21.03.2015 vide Ex.C8.  Since the problem of leakage continued, the complainant issued a legal notice on 04.05.2015 vide Ex.C9 and C10 postal receipt which was acknowledged by the opposite Parties.  Ex.C11 is the acknowledgement card of second opposite party, but there was neither any response from the Opposite Parties nor the defect was rectified.

8.         From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear that there was defect in the Purifier purchased by the complainant from the first Opposite Party through second Opposite Party and though service Engineers of second Opposite Party attended the fault, they could not able to rectify the defect fully.    The complainant took more efforts to get the defects rectified, but it went on vein.  The purpose for which the purifier was  purchased by the complainant was not served.  Instead, it gave mental agony, loss and sufferings.  The Opposite parties have not come forward to solve the problem even after receipt of legal notice Ex.C9.   The complainant clearly established his case and proved the negligent act, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for their negligent Act.

9.         Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and the

1. First Opposite Party is hereby directed to replace the disputed  Water Purifier with a new one together with fresh warranty and then take back the disputed Water Purifier.
2. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service, damages and for mental agony.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

             The above orders should be complied with by the Opposite Parties within two months from the date of this order.

Dated this the  9^th  day of November 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW.1              01.10.2015                Maria Joseph           

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER