N. Padmavathi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, - Complainant(s)
Versus
1.Vigneswara Agencies, Authorised Franchise for Eureka Forbes Ltd, Rep. By its Proprietor, Ramalayam - Opp.Party(s)
K.V. Ramana Rao
28 Oct 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/94
N. Padmavathi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao,
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1.Vigneswara Agencies, Authorised Franchise for Eureka Forbes Ltd, Rep. By its Proprietor, Ramalayam Road, Beside Citi Big Super Market, 2. Eureka Forbes Ltd., B1/B2, 701,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 28th day of October, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C. No.94/2010 Between: N.padmavathi, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Age: 46years, Occu: Employee, R/o H.No.4-2-277, Srinagar Colony, Rotarynagar, Khammam .Complainant And 1. Vigneswara Agencies, Authorized Fanchisee for Eureka Forbes Ltd., rep. by its Proprietor, Ramalayam Road, Beside Citi Big Super market, Khammam 507 002. 2. Eureka Forbes ltd., B1/B2, 701, Marathon Nexgen Innova, Off Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Opposite parties This C.C. is coming before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri. K.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Complainant and notice served for opposite parties No.1 & 2, called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- O R D E R (Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member) 1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Aquaguard Reviva water purifier on 14-12-2009 from the opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.9,990/- , which was manufactured by the opposite party No.2. The said water purifier was in good condition for a period of 5 months from the date of purchase and after that started giving troubles in purifying the water, immediately it was informed to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 sent a technician and repaired the defects, arose in the machine. In the month of July 2010, the same problem was once again arisen. Therefore the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1. However, the opposite party No.1 neither rectified the defects nor replaced the machine even after making many rounds, due to which, the complainant and her family suffered a lot and spent amounts for purchasing of drinking water from other sources by spending Rs.40/- per day, it amounts to deficiency of service and as such preferred to file a complaint before this Forum by praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the Aquaguard Reviva water purifier with new one or to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and costs. 2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, which were marked as exhibits. Ex.A1 :- Invoice-cum- receipt dated 14-10-2009, issued by opposite party No.1 Ex.A2:- Broachers of the machine with warranty- terms & conditions. 3. Despite notice, the opposite parties neither appeared before the Forum nor contested the matter. 4. In support of her averments, the complainant filed written arguments with the same averments as mentioned in the complaint. 5. In view of the above facts & circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? It is the case of the complainant that she purchased Aquaguard Reviva water purifier from the opposite parties on 14-10-2009 by paying an amount of Rs.9,990/-, for necessitating the drinking water to her family. After its purchase, worked properly for a period of 5 months, thereafter started giving troubles and could not purify the water. Immediately, the problem was brought to the notice of opposite party No.1, then the technician of opposite party No.1 attended the defects and repaired the same, even though, once again the same problem arose in the month of July, 2010 i.e. within 9 months from the date of purchase, that too within the period of warranty, again the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1. In spite of repeated rounds, the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects and did not even respond to attend the machine for rectification of defects and as such the complainant knocked the doors of Consumer Forum by filing a complaint together with exhibits A1 & A2. Ex.A1 is the Invoice-cum-receipt dated 14-10-2009. Ex.A2 contains warranty together with terms & conditions, as per Ex.A2, the machine has 12months warranty from the date of installation or 15 months from the date of sale and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it clearly seems that the water purifier is defective and could not purify the water within the period of warranty, therefore the very purpose of the purchase of water purifier is defeated and as such it is the duty of the opposite parties to bear loss of the complainant by replacing the defective water purifier with new one as the repeated defects, arose in the machine within warranty period and moreover even after receipt of notice from the Forum, the opposite parties neither contested the matter nor responded to redress the grievance of the complainant and as such it definitely amounts to deficiency of service on their part, therefore the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. 6. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to replace the defective Aqua guard Reviva, water purifier vide serial No.D09-6050044 with new one and also directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards damages and Rs.500/- towards costs. Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 28th day of October, 2010. President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A1 :- Invoice-cum- receipt dated 14-10-2009, issued by opposite party No.1 Ex.A2:- Broacher of the machine with warranty- terms & conditions Exhibits marked for opposite parties: - Nil - President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
