M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) The complainant/respondent herein, who had purchased an Aqua Guard Water Purifier, from the first opposite party on 20.06.2006 for a sum of Rs.8,150/-, has filed a consumer complaint, contending that there was delay in installation of the Water Purifier, that within the short period of installation and demonstration, the Water Purifier was not functioning properly, resulting its failure, satisfying the very purpose of installing the Water Purifier for pure water, that despite report, about the defect though at some point of time, the opposite parties rectified, not fully rectified, making it functional, thereby they have committed deficiency in service, in not rectifying the defect in the said Water Purifier and thereby they have caused mental agony, for which, there should be a direction, against the opposite parties to refund the cost of Water Purifier as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
(3.) The opposite parties not disputing the purchase of Aqua Guard Royal Water Filter and the same was installed on 20.06.2006, resisted the case, contending, that there was no manufacturing defect or any other defects whatsoever in the machine, that the opposite parties have attended the complaint of the complainant without any delay and no fault, that upon the complaint, Service Engineer had been to the house of the complainant, he was not available and not only that he has also refused to allow the Service Engineer to enter into the house and therefore, the averments that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service or failed to rectify the defects, are imaginary in nature, for which, the complainant is not entitled to any relief.;