APPU HOTELS LIMITED Vs. ION EXCHANGE SERVICES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 : Complainant is a 5 Star Hotel having his brand name Lee Royal Meridian, Chennai and in the hotel premises at No.1, GST Road, Saint Thomas Mount for the purpose of water producing by Reverse Osmosis Plant for the use of the complainant. The opposite party at the cost of the complainant, supplied, installed and commissioned the plant and thereafter it was entrusted for maintenance under an agreement contract dated 26.9.06 for the period from 26.9.06 to 25.10.08 on monthly charges of Rs.25,000/- and as per the contract the opposite party agreed to operate the R.O. Plant for 3 shifts deputing skilled operator for one shift and to maintain all log books and records with supervision once in a month and the Engineer to visit once in 15 days and before the performance of the R.O to the complainant. During the 2nd week of February 2007 when the engineer inspected the R.O Plant found out the permeate flow is dropped down to 80 LPM and the log book was not maintained by the opposite party. On the advise of opposite party the membrane cleaning was made and in spite of that cleaning no improvement was made in the water flow and during the September 2008 when the Engineer of the complainant inspected the R.O plant found the permeate flow is dropped down to 8- LPM there was leakage in the pipelines and the high pressure pump set water hardness was 50 PPM was very much above the expected limit which would affect the performance of the equipments of the R.O. Plant. Consequent to the improper maintenance other equipments like boilers imported kitchen equipments also damaged. Apart from the maintenance charges of Rs.25,000/- every month paid till May 2008 as per the suggestion of the Area Manager of the opposite party another sum of Rs.60,000/- was spent to improve the flow rate but was not achieved. Hence a legal notice was issued on 20.10.2008 for the refund of amount paid for the service charges amounting Rs.5,00,000/- together with Rs.25,00,000/- being the damages to the R.O plant and other equipments for which a false reply was received was by the opposite party on 6.11.08 demanding Rs.1,51,735/- being the maintenance charges and cost of spare parts. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming to refund the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- being the total operation and maintenance charges received from the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the complainant towards damages to the R.O plant and other equipments and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and for costs.

(2.) The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant in their written version and the brief details of the version are as follows :- The R.O plant installed by the complainant is not supplied by the opposite party and it is admitted that the opposite party entered in to an agreement for annual maintenance and there is no fixed guarantee for the quantity/quality of specifically treated out put water which depends on the quality and condition of the membrane which is one of the important parts in the R.O plant and the quality of out put depends upon the quality of input water when the flow is reduced membrane has to be cleaned with some special chemical and accordingly the opposite party carried out the maintenance of the R.O. Plant and pressure tube supplied by the opposite party as given life up to April 2007 and it was replaced in May 2007 which is working in good condition only after cleaning was made the flows of the water lever was increased in February 2007 which was continued up to September 2007 due to technical and thorough knowledge of the opposite party. As per the contract spares are to be supplied by the complainant and in the month of August 2008 the complainant was suggested for replacement of some critical spares in the R.O. plant and other units. But the complainant did not change even a single spare part and ordered. The opposite party to operate the plant without change any spares. The opposite party is to maintain only up to the out let of the R.O plan and pressure regarding the other parts like boiler kitchen etc., The persons employed by the complainant are very weak knowledge in their field and they have devoid from the standard norms of operation. The complainant paid maintenance charges only up to May 2008 at the rate of Rs.25,000/- p.m but the operators and engineers of the opposite party worked in the plant till end of October 2008 and from June 2008 to October 2008 complainant has not paid the maintenance charges and spare parts value Rs.26,7235/- in all Rs.1,51,735/- and thereby there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party complaint to be dismissed.

(3.) Both sides have filed their proof affidavits and documents of both sides are marked as Exhibit A1 to A13 and Exhibit B1 to B5.