Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Watech Ro System vs Riya Embroidary on 29 November, 2022

                                                       Details        DD MM           YY
                                               Date of Judgment       29    11    2022
                                                  Date of filing      30    01    2015
                                                     Duration         30    09    07

        IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

        GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD

                      First Appeal No. 61 of 2015

                              Court No. 1

          1. WATECH RO SYSTEM (I) PVT. LTD
             AT, National Highway No.6, Surat Road,
             Opposite Fitness Plant, GIDC Bardoli.
          2. SHRI OM SHAH (MANAGING DIRECTOR)
             WATECH RO SYSTEM (I) PVT. LTD
             AT, National Highway No.6, Surat Road,
             Opposite Fitness Plant, GIDC Bardoli.               ..Appellants
                        Vs
          1. RIYA EMBROIDARY SOLE PROPRITOR
             SHRIMATI ABHILASH BRIJESH TEKRIWAL
             AT, C-38-39, PRAMUKH PARK SOCIETY
             PANDESARA SURAT                                ..Respondant


       Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President
               Hon'ble Ms. A. C. Raval, Member

APPERANCE : Ld. Adv. Mr. D. U. thakkar for the appellant Ld. Adv. Mr Shreyash Desai and Mr. Milan Dudhiya for the respondent Order By : (Hon'ble Ms. A. C. Raval, Member )

1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 31.12.2014 Passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Surat (Additionsal) (for short Learned District Commission ) in consumer Complaint no.

2. Heard 1d. Advocate Mr. D. U. Thakkar for the appellant. Ld. Adv. Mr. Shreyash Desai and Mr. Milan Dudhiya for the respondent. Perused The record of the case and judgement and order passed by the Id. District commission.

2.1 The appellants is original opponents and the respondent is original complainant. Hereinafter the appellant and the respondent will be referred as per their original status.

3. Order under Challenge:

The Learned District Commission has partly allowed the Consumer Complaint and ordered the opponent to pay to the complainant Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with interest accruing @ 9% from the date of complaint till realization, within 30 days. The opponent is also directed to pay separately Rs, 2000 (Rupees two thousand only) for the physical and mental torture and cost of appeal Rs. 1000 (One Thousand Only) to be paid as the cost of the litigation etc. to the complainant.

4. Fact of the case of the complainant:

It is the case of complainant (Present Respondent) that he has purchased R.O. Treatment system from Appellant (original opponent) for his personal usage as well as for personal usage of his staff. Further Appellant had prepared Quotation on dated 15/05/2010 and along with Terms and Conditions. That According to the Quotation (page No.10) condition no.3 of terms and conditions Payment: 50 % was to be paid advance while booking and 50% amount is to be paid at the time of Installation and warranty will be for one year. Respondent had purchased "WAMAX 150 LPH RO with COOLER 3 TAPE" plant and complainant had paid Rs. 50,000 as advance on dated 20.07.2010 by cheque. The RO system was not working and it has problem of leakage, wiring was defective, membrane was faulty, and some other parts were also defective. In 9 months from installation it was required to be repaired many times and at the time of filing of the complaint also it was not working and therefore the complaint was preferred to get Rs.50,000/- with interest, cost and compensation.

4. Argument of the Appellant:

Advocate appearing for the appellants argued that the order passed by the Learned District Commission is based on conjectures and surmises and hence, required to be set aside. The complainant had purchased said RO plant for that commercial purpose. The RO plant was purchased in the name of 'Riya Embrodary'. Learned District Commission has failed to consider condition no. 3 produced at page no. 28 that Payment: 50% as advance, 50% amount will be paid at the time of installation. All the payment should be in favour of "FAIRY Enterprise by cheque payable at Axis Bank. The complainant has not paid remaining 50% amount at the time of installation of RO plant. This is the breach of condition and complainant is not entitled to any relief. At the time of installation of RO the engineer from the appellants company visited the premises of the complainant and informed about the less flow inlet in the RO plant. Even the electrical wiring in the factory of complainant was also defective and because of the said faulty wiring, RO machines adaptor was fired and micro switch and membrane was also affected due to faulty wiring. Even otherwise the order passed by the Learned District Commission is dehorns the factual aspect, the law and the principal of natural justice and requested to quashed and set aside the same order and to allow the appeal.

5. Argument of the Respondent:

Advocate appearing for the respondent/complainant argued that the order passed by the Learned District Commission is allowing the complainant and directing opponents to pay Rs. 50,000/- with 9% interest and cost of Rs. 3,000/- is just and proper. Hon'ble forum has held that the system was purchased by the complainant was not for any commercial purpose but it was used for drinking water by the complainant and his staff and therefore, it cannot be said that the system was purchased for commercial purpose and the complainant is not consumer. The complainant could not use the plant single day without any complaint from the date of installation. Within 9 months from installation, RO plant was repaired about 13 times. This amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Hence, the complainant is entitles to the compensation as avoided by the Learned District Commission. Hence, this appeal may be dismissed.

Merits of the case:

6. Heard the advocate appearing for both the parties, perused the record. It transpires from the record that certain facts are undisputed that the opponent had given a quotation of installation of RO plant in the premises of complainant at the cost of Rs. 1,15,000. The warranty of system was of one year. The invoice was issued on 30.10.2010. The complainant paid Rs. 50,000 and had not paid remaining Rs. 65,000. There were some problems in the working of RO plant and therefore, it was repaired by the opponent about 13 times in 9 months.

6.1 It is the argument of the opponent that the RO plant was purchased in the name of 'Riya Embroidery' the company and is not purchased by the complainant for his personal use. Therefore, it amounts to commercial transaction and hence, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has mentioned in the complaint that the RO plant was purchased for personal use and for the staff members of the company. There is no direct connection of purchase of RO plant with the commercial activities of the complainant company, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant is not a consumer. When there is no direct nexus between the goods purchased and the commercial transactions carried out by of the company the purchaser is a Consumer within the preview of the Consumer Protection Act.

6.2 The opponent has argued that the complainant has not paid Rs. 65,000 as per the terms and conditions produced at page no. 28 and for the breach of condition, he is not entitled to refund as prayed for in the complaint. The complainant has paid Rs. 50,000 in advance at the time of purchase of RO plant. The none compliance of terms and conditions and none payment of remaining amount of 65,000 could not be joint as a issue in the matter of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to have ADIT A-15-61 Page 4 of 6 successful installation of the RO plant. The service memos produced from page 31 shows that the complainant could not enjoy the product he had purchased for the purpose. The RO plant was repaired 13 times in the first 9 months, though it could not work and the complainant had to prefer the Consumer Complaint. The RO plant was purchased on 13.08.2010. The service memo dated 27.10.2010 shows that the leakage was closed. The wiring was damaged therefore, new wiring was done. New micro switch was installed. Such type of description is mentioned in different service vouchers like membrane housing changed. In short even after 13 services/ repaired, the complainant could not peacefully enjoy the usage of product. Hence, is entitled to the refund of the amount whatever is paid by him. We are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the amount paid by him to the opponent and should handover the RO plant which was installed by the opponent back to him.

7. The complainant has not handed over the RO plant to the opponent. The Learned District Commission has also not mentioned in the order regarding the handing over the RO plant to the opponent. The RO plant remained with the complainant for a longer time and how it is also of no use to the opponent. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs. 35,000 towards refund of advance, he has said.

8. We have considered the grounds stated in memo of appeal, reasons stated in impugned Judgment and order, documentary evidence produced on record, fact and circumstances of the case. We have satisfied that the order passed by the Learned District Commission is legal, proper and correct in eye of law. Therefore, it does not required interference. As a result the appeal is required to be dismissed. Hence, in the interest of justice following order is passed.

ORDER A) The appeal is hereby partly allowed.

B) The order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Learned District Commission Surat (Additional), in C.C. No. 255/2012 is hereby modified to the extent that:

I. The complainant to be paid Rs. 35,000 along with interest @9% from the date of filing of the complainant till the realization. II. The Rest of the order is hereby confirmed.

C) No order as to cost.

D) Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to the parties by RPAD. Registry is further directed to send a copy this judgment to the District Commission Surat (additional through E-mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.

Pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2022.

                 [Ms. A. C. Raval]                       [Mr. Justice V. P. Patel]
                     Member                                    President




ADIT                                   A-15-61                               Page 6 of 6