The Hindu : New Delhi News : Refund for defective water filter

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Aug 26, 2004

New Delhi

New Delhi

Refund for defective water filter

By Our Staff Reporter

NEW DELHI, AUG. 25. This was a water-filter that did not certainly live up to its name. Having bought a Kent Reverse Osmosis Systems for Rs. 16,500, the last thing that R.S Bansal expected was that he would have to go to court to get purified water.

It took him an year-long legal battle to get "justice''. A bench of the consumer disputes redressal forum held Kent R.O. Systems guilty of deficiency in service for supplying a defective product to Mr. Bansal and directed the company to refund Rs. 16,500 with 10 per cent interest from September 2002 till payment. It further directed the company to pay an additional Rs. 500 as cost of litigation.

In his case before the consumer redressal disputes forum, Mr. Bansal argued that he ordered the water-filter in August 2002. The payment was to be made within one month of the installation. But in less than a month, the water-filter started producing less purified water.

Mr. Bansal lodged a complaint with the company which attended to the problem immediately. However, soon after that the water-filter stopped functioning again and the company changed it promising Mr. Bansal that it would not give trouble for years. Reassured by their word, Mr. Bansal issued a cheque to the company for the water-filter. Mr. Bansal found the water-filter was frequently out of order and he was forced to make several complaints. In less than a month, Mr. Bansal had to change the membrane of the water-filter for Rs. 3,000 as well as get the pump repaired. After going through all the evidence, a bench of the consumer redressal disputes forum stated that the water purifier was installed in the first week of September 2002 and immediately started giving trouble. The history of the faults indicates that there was an inherent defect in the water-purifier, which the company failed to rectify.

In absence of any rebuttal evidence, the bench stated that there was no reason to disbelieve Mr. Bansal.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi