BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
ORDER
SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER
Complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to refund a sum of Rs.14,940/- towards the cost of defective product and Rs.2,450/- towards the filter and chip replacement charges collected by the OP, to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and legal cost as this commission deems fit.
1. Brief facts of this case are as follows:
Complainant has approached Dr. Aquaguard NRich UV bearing ID No.1231010196034950 (hereafter referred as the product) from OP on 20.11.2019. Complainant has paid Rs.14,490/- to the said product and OP has issued an invoice bearing No.153150045997. Complainant stated that while approaching the product sales team of OP, they were represented about the said product for its long life and reliability and about its warranty for 1 year. Complainant stated that the said product was promoted by brand ambassador Madhuri Dixit with false and misleading advertisement about the product which is a deceptive practice of business as alleged by complainant.
2. Issues Faced by Complainant:
Complainant stated in his complaint that within 2 days after the purchase, the said Aquaguard stopped functioning. Complainant raised a complaint for its rectification with the OP. OP referred its technician for rectification. OP technician informed complainant that it was under warranty and there was no requirement of payment for the service fees. In the month of September 2020, the red light started flickering on the product, indicating that service is required. Thereafter, complainant called OP’s helpline on 27.09.2020, and a technician of OP visited the complainant’s place for service. As per his observation, the chip and filter of the said product needed replacement and it costs around Rs.2,450/- for the replacement and fixation charges. Accordingly, he paid the amount and got it repaired. After a few months of usage in January 2021, again the red light started flickering, and the product stopped working. Again, the complainant raised a complaint with OP but received no response from OP. With the help of OP’s helpline, complainant raised a complaint on 24.01.2021, even after assurances for sending a technician, no one was sent from OP. After 11 days of complaint, OP sent a technician with the same version of the chip and filter to be replaced, which was damaged. The technician also advised the complainant to take an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with OP for product service instead of paying service and visiting charges to the technicians. But complainant did not accept AMC.
3. Continued Problems with the Product:
Complainant stated that on 25.04.2021 again the same problem arose with the product and the same was attended by a technician of OP on 28.04.2021. When the complainant faced repeated problems with the product, he intended to resolve it permanently with the technician of OP. The technician replied that the chip was designed faulty and OP did not sell chips separately. The chip had to be taken up along with the filter. He also stated that in case of any defect in the chip, reused chips were installed for the customers. The company was making unlawful profit out of AMC. These representations made the company refuse the AMC but OP executives insisted on taking Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) to gain money out of it.
4. Complaints and Legal Action:
Complainant alleged that the represented trouble with the product several times, he raised complaints with the OP but did not resolve the problem. On 31.07.2021, the complainant received an E-mail from one Deepa of the OP company stating that issues had been addressed and closed. Complainant alleged that he raised complaints with the OP company several times which were unilaterally closed without resolutions. After receipt of the E-mail, the complainant received a call from Kolkata promising him that they would take the defective product with replacement of a new one, owing to the continuous failure of the chip. Subsequently, the complainant received a call from the sales team in Bangalore insisting the complainant purchase a new product and leave the old Aquaguard as it is. By depriving good water for drinking purposes, the complainant and his family suffered mental agony, distress, inconvenience, and loss of time and money in the past months which caused deficiency of service and negligent act of OP, due to false and misleading advertisement with the help of celebrities. Complainant sought compensation from OP company for the loss of mental agony.
5. OP’s Response:
OP represented through its counsel filed its statement of objections stating that the complainant filed this complaint with malicious intention to extract money and defame the goodwill of OP brand. He contented that the complaint is not maintainable under the act, it is frivolous and devoid of any merits not substantiated by any cogent evidence to prove their allegations. OP contends that immediately after the complaint was filed, OP sent their technician to attend the problem with the product. OP admitted that it received the amount for the replacement of the chip and filter but did not charge for the service. OP denied that the technician of OP had forced them to take the Annual Maintenance Contract, only informed about the AMC for the benefit of the complainant which is not compulsory. Therefore, OP alleged this is a frivolous and concocted complaint when the consumer also refused to get the product repaired and asked for a refund of the product. OP stated that the complainant was informed of immediate service and also replacement of the product in case any major issue is found in the inspection of the product. The complainant sought some time to make his decision. OP tried to contact the complainant multiple times, but the complainant did not give his decision. Hence the replacement was not made. Therefore, OP stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part and prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.
6. Evidence and Complaints:
The case was set down to lead evidence from both parties. Accordingly, the GPA holder of complainant adduced affidavit evidence along with 20 documents including certificate U/S 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. In spite of sufficient opportunities given to OP, they did not lead their evidence or file any documents. Both parties filed their written arguments, with the decision we perused the materials on record.
7. Points for Consideration:
On the basis of above pleadings, the points for our consideration are as follows:-
- Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief?
- What order?
Our answers to the above points are as follows:
- Point No.1:- In the affirmative.
- Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.
- Point No.3:- As per the final order.
REASONS
8. Points No.1 & 2:
These points are inter-connected and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.
After going through the pleadings and the documents placed by both parties, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased Dr. Aquaguard NRich UV water purifier of OP brand on 21.11.2019, vide product ID No. 1231010196034950. For that OP has issued a tax invoice for Rs.13,490/- which is at Ex.P.1. By perusing the documents produced, whatsapp chats and the E-mail communication between the complainant and OP, it discloses that the complainant has faced problems with the said Aquaguard purifier since the beginning of installation and the same has been brought to the notice of OP by raising complaints with the helpline and also with the sales team of OP. Initially, OP technician has attended the defective product immediately after the complaint was raised by the complainant and informed that the said product has a defect because of the malfunctioning of the chip and filter which has to be replaced. He also informed that the chip and filter would be charged for the replacement of components but the service charge is not required to be paid due to the product being under warranty. Since the water purifier is essential for the life of the complainant and his family members, considering the inconvenience caused to him, he agreed to the replacement of the chip and filter, and he paid Rs. 2,450/- towards the replacement of components on 01.10.2020 i.e., within 1 year of warranty which is at Ex.P.7. As per the company’s policy, when the product carries 1 year of warranty OP company has to replace it without any charges for the components. More so the complainant has suffered with the defective product even after the replacement of components by paying charges. He raised complaints with the OP and its sales team when further complaints arose. Subsequently, the technician who attended the product informed that the complainant has to take AMC facility from OP company for the annual maintenance of the product otherwise he has to pay for the service charges. When they insisted on the AMC, the complainant refused and alleged that OP company is not taking proper care in rectifying the product but only insisting on taking the AMC for unlawful gain and extracting money from the consumers.
It is pertinent to note that after perusing the complaint, the complainant has raised his complaint more than 3-4 times with OP. More so, OP has not rectified the defective product and did not make the product function properly. Later one of the executives from the OP company of Kolkata promised to replace the defective product with a new one but the sales team of OP in Bangalore, did not agree to replace it with a new product. Though the complainant has caused a legal notice to OP on 18.10.2021 calling upon OP to refund the amount paid towards the product with compensation of 10 lakhs, even after the service of the legal notice to OP, they did not come forward to rectify the product or refund the amount as claimed. By perusing the E-mails and their replies, OP has admitted to the inconvenience caused to the complainant about the defect in the product and the complainant raised complaints many times. It exhibits that OP has not rendered quality service to rectify the same. Though the product was under warranty period OP neither replaced the product when it was under warranty nor took proper resolution to the defect which is causing problems/inconvenience to the complainant. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP.
In case OP is genuine with its act, OP could come forward to rectify the product without charging for any components or service when the product has 1 year of warranty. OP did not take proper action to rectify the same. OP filed its statement of objection on the date of proceedings but did not lead its evidence. OP did not file any documentary evidence to prove its contention. Hence, the complainant proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP caused inconvenience to his family till now. The defective product is still lying with the complainant without any function. For that OP has to compensate the complainant by repaying the amount, he paid towards the Dr. Aquaguard Water Purifier with interest. For denying rectification though it is under warranty and made the complainant get good drinking water from outside by investing in it which definitely caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and his family. OP has to compensate with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation. For the foregoing reasons, we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.
9. Point No.3:
In view of the discussion referred to above, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
- Complaint filed U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act is hereby allowed in part.
- OP is directed to repay Rs.13,490/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of purchase and to repay Rs.2,450/- towards replacement of the chip and filter to the complainant after collecting the defective water purifier from the complainant.
- OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP is directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the Award amount from the date of order till realization.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 4th day of OCTOBER, 2023)