District Consumer Forum, Ganjam,Berhampur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/93
Sri Chakrapani Sahu,Gandhinagar 8th line, Po: Berhampur.Dist: Ganjam.
………..Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. M/s Sri Ram Enterprises, Divisional Sales Office, ASG (R&D) Park Street, Berhampur-2, Ganjam, Orissa
2. M/s ASG Research & Development, Area Sales Office, H.B.Colony,MIG-I 22/3, Phase-1, Chandrasekharpur Bhubaneswar , Dist: Khurda,Orissa.
3. M/s ASG Research & Development, S-3 Thambu Chetty, Palaya Cross, Bangalore- 560 049.(Karnatak)
………..Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Mr.Harish Chandra Nayak
2. Smt. Shanti Panigrahi
3. Mr. N Tuna Sahu
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Mr. Krushna Mohan Panigrahy and Mr. Niranjan Mahapatra,
ORDER
Shri Haris Chandra Nayak, President: Deficiency in service against the Opposite parties is the grievance of the complainant. 2..Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 17.11.2007 he purchased one water purifier (Smart Brand) pure and healthy Drinking water RO, by paying Rs. 12,240/- vide invoice No.18 dt.17.11.2007 from O.P.No.1 with a warranty/guarantee period of one year and four free services. The costliest water purifier (Smart Brand) is a defective one and not worked properly and started troubles within a month of purchasing date and also R.O. could not discharge quality water as per written assurance given by him in the reverse side of Bill too, stating that the RO will maintain water TDS levels up to 50 to 65 within 1800 days. On 14.1.2008 the complainant reported about the defect of RO to O.P.No.1 and requested him to rectify the defects as early as possible on health grounds of his family members. Again the complainant personally requested on dt.25.1.2008, 11.2.08, and 1.3.08 (three times) to OP No.1 to rectify the defects if any in water purifier or to refund the price or to exchange of the same because he is spending more money for purified water by purchasing in the open market as per advise of his family doctor. The complainant sent a Regd. Letter to OP No.1 but the said letter returned as per postal remarks that addressee absent, hence returned to sender. At last the complainant approached to Ganjam District Consumer Protection Guild at Berhampur for redressal of his difficulties but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to exchange the water purifier or to refund the cost of the water purifier with interest, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- in the best interest of justice. 3. On receipt of notice issued by this Forum, the O.P.No.1 filed version through his Advocate. It is contended that all the allegations enumerated in the petition are false and baseless and the complainant should be asked to strict proof of the same. The complainant has purchased a water purifier (Smart Brand) from OP No.1 on 17.11.2007 vide invoice No.18. The O.P.No.1 has not issued a one year warranty card in respect of the alleged water purifier to the complainant due to non paid the full amount. The complainant has never contacted to O.P.No.1 after purchase of the alleged produce and regarding requesting to O.P.No.1 on various dates are false and imaginary. The complainant has never brought the defect of the alleged product to the knowledge of the O.P.No.1. As such the question of negligence and deficiency of service by the O.P.No.1 does not arise. Hence prayed to dismiss the case in the interest of justice. 4. On the date of hearing we heard argument. We perused the complaint petition, version, documents available in the record. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his case. It is stated that the O.Ps failed to exchange the defective water purifier or to refund the cost of the water purifier. One Sri Satya Narayan Satapathy working as Group Leader-cum-Sales service and service Technician filed affidavit that the complainant paid Rs.10,000/-only towards the cost of the purchased water purifier (smart Brand). On receipt of complaint on dt. 21.6.08 he visited the complainants house checked the water purifier and finding it defective and changed the membranes and fitted the same to the water purifier without any cost and given free service with endorsement in the warranty card. The purchaser has not paid the full and final amount of the water purifier for which the original warranty card and the bill has not been issued to complainant. The said documents are in custody of the organisation i.e. Sri Ram Enterprises. The O.Ps failed to exchange the defective water purifier or to refund the cost of the water purifier during the warranty period. We feel that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. In the result, we direct the Opposite parties who are jointly and severally liable, to replace the defective water purifier (smart Brand) and to supply a new water purifier (smart Brand) or in alternative to refund the cost of the said water purifier Rs.10,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of his complaint i.e. dt. 10.12.2008 till the date of payment to the complainant. We also direct the O.Ps to pay cost of Rs 1000/- to the complainant. The above order should comply by the O.Ps within one month of receipt of this order. The order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 7th December 2009. Typed to my dictation and corrected by me.
Shri Haris Chandra Nayak, President: Deficiency in service against the Opposite parties is the grievance of the complainant. 2..Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 17.11.2007 he purchased one water purifier (Smart Brand) pure and healthy Drinking water RO, by paying Rs. 12,240/- vide invoice No.18 dt.17.11.2007 from O.P.No.1 with a warranty/guarantee period of one year and four free services. The costliest water purifier (Smart Brand) is a defective one and not worked properly and started troubles within a month of purchasing date and also R.O. could not discharge quality water as per written assurance given by him in the reverse side of Bill too, stating that the RO will maintain water TDS levels up to 50 to 65 within 1800 days. On 14.1.2008 the complainant reported about the defect of RO to O.P.No.1 and requested him to rectify the defects as early as possible on health grounds of his family members. Again the complainant personally requested on dt.25.1.2008, 11.2.08, and 1.3.08 (three times) to OP No.1 to rectify the defects if any in water purifier or to refund the price or to exchange of the same because he is spending more money for purified water by purchasing in the open market as per advise of his family doctor. The complainant sent a Regd. Letter to OP No.1 but the said letter returned as per postal remarks that addressee absent, hence returned to sender. At last the complainant approached to Ganjam District Consumer Protection Guild at Berhampur for redressal of his difficulties but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to exchange the water purifier or to refund the cost of the water purifier with interest, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- in the best interest of justice. 3. On receipt of notice issued by this Forum, the O.P.No.1 filed version through his Advocate. It is contended that all the allegations enumerated in the petition are false and baseless and the complainant should be asked to strict proof of the same. The complainant has purchased a water purifier (Smart Brand) from OP No.1 on 17.11.2007 vide invoice No.18. The O.P.No.1 has not issued a one year warranty card in respect of the alleged water purifier to the complainant due to non paid the full amount. The complainant has never contacted to O.P.No.1 after purchase of the alleged produce and regarding requesting to O.P.No.1 on various dates are false and imaginary. The complainant has never brought the defect of the alleged product to the knowledge of the O.P.No.1. As such the question of negligence and deficiency of service by the O.P.No.1 does not arise. Hence prayed to dismiss the case in the interest of justice. 4. On the date of hearing we heard argument. We perused the complaint petition, version, documents available in the record. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his case. It is stated that the O.Ps failed to exchange the defective water purifier or to refund the cost of the water purifier. One Sri Satya Narayan Satapathy working as Group Leader-cum-Sales service and service Technician filed affidavit that the complainant paid Rs.10,000/-only towards the cost of the purchased water purifier (smart Brand). On receipt of complaint on dt. 21.6.08 he visited the complainants house checked the water purifier and finding it defective and changed the membranes and fitted the same to the water purifier without any cost and given free service with endorsement in the warranty card. The purchaser has not paid the full and final amount of the water purifier for which the original warranty card and the bill has not been issued to complainant. The said documents are in custody of the organisation i.e. Sri Ram Enterprises. The O.Ps failed to exchange the defective water purifier or to refund the cost of the water purifier during the warranty period. We feel that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. In the result, we direct the Opposite parties who are jointly and severally liable, to replace the defective water purifier (smart Brand) and to supply a new water purifier (smart Brand) or in alternative to refund the cost of the said water purifier Rs.10,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of his complaint i.e. dt. 10.12.2008 till the date of payment to the complainant. We also direct the O.Ps to pay cost of Rs 1000/- to the complainant. The above order should comply by the O.Ps within one month of receipt of this order. The order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 7th December 2009. Typed to my dictation and corrected by me.
………………….
Mr.Harish Chandra Nayak
………………….
Smt. Shanti Panigrahi
………………….
Mr. N Tuna Sahu