Delhi

North

CC/98/2021

GAUTAM MANSHARAMANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMBAY ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

SHWETA SAINI

28 Dec 2022

ORDER

Consumer Complaint No. CC/98/2021

 

In the matter of

1. Gautam Mansharamani  

S/o Ram Mansharamani

4/9, Roop Nagar, North Delhi

Delhi-110007                                                            ..........Complainant

                                                                    Vs

1. Ambay Enterprises Eureka Forbes

E-2/109, Near Rathor Kachori Wala

Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052                                        ....Opposite party

 

2. Eureka Forbes Limited

B1/B2, 701, 7^th floor

Marathon Next Gen

Marathon Innova

Off-Ganpatrao kadam Marg

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013                                     ....Opposite party

 

3. Eureka Forbes Limited

Lal Tapper Industrial Area

Majri Grant, Dehradun-248140                                              ....Opposite party

                                               

ORDER

28.12.2022
 

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

          This complaint has been filed under Section 35 (1)(a), of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 by Sh. Gautam Mansharamani, the complainant against Ambay Enterprises Eureka Forbes as OP-1; Eureka Forbes Ltd., Mumbai as OP-2 and Eureka Forbes Ltd., Dehradun as OP-3.

          Facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that, on 11/10/2020, the complainant purchased Eureka Forbes UV Water Purifier “Dr. Aquaguard Classic+” bearing product code GWPDDCLPE10000; Sr.No.1230307306003429 with manufacturing month /year as 07/2020.  An invoice of Rs. 11,190/- was issued by the seller. The complainant has stated that within 03 months there was problem in the functioning of the water purifier, for which a complaint was registered at the customer care number on the same date i.e. 20/01/2021 with complaint No.201957146.  It has been stated by the complainant that since the water purifier was not working he was constrained buy Bisleri water containers. 

          The complainant was informed that his complaint would be addressed soon, however, no technician ever visited the premises for rectification of the defect in the water purifier.  Again, on 27/01/2021 complaint was registered with customer care No. vide complaint No.2019662371 at 6.19 pm.  One technician namely Mr. Rajat to whom the complaint was assigned by OP visited the residence of the complainant but was unable to identify the defect and left the premises without rectifying the issue. 

          Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP-1, the authorised service centre, of Eureka Forbes, where he was informed that some parts of the said purifier were not available and was requested to wait.  Despite lapse of a period of 15 days nor such part was made available by OP-1, neither any repair was carried out.  Further, the complainant has stated that he was informed by Mr. Ashok Ray, the owner of the OP-1, that there was problem with the mother board and the touch of the UV water purifier in dispute and the only option was to directly connect it to power plug so that touch button need not be used.  This solution was not acceptable to the complainant as the water filter was installed for his aged parents.  The complainant was again assured that aforesaid parts shall be made available within a week and the defect would be rectified.

          It has been also stated by the complainant that following complaints were made:

 

S.No.	Date of complaint	Time of complaint	Complaint No.
1.	20.01.2021	04:50 pm	2019571460
2	27.01.2021	06:19 pm	2019662371
3	06.02.2021	02:20 pm	0112451965 (follow up complaint  No.)
4	07.02.2021	02:25 pm	No. number given
5	09.02.2021	03:30 pm	0112479170 (follow up complaint No.)
6	11.02.2021	02:45 pm	0112507139 (follow up complaint No.)
7	13.02.2021	12:41 pm	0112526709 (follow up complaint No.)
8	16.02.2021	12:40 pm	0112553996 (follow up complaint No.)
9	22.02.2021	02:40 pm	2019977411

 

 

Despite, several visits OPs failed to rectify the defect in the water purifier, a legal notice dated 09/04/2021 was served upon OP-1 to OP-3, which was neither replied nor complied with. The complainant has stated that on 03/06/2021,Mr. Ashok Ray, owner of OP-1 proposed to the complainant that the parts of the disputed UV water purifier would be replaced without any charges and also offered to extend the warranty for a period of 03 months which was rejected by him. 

Feeling aggrieved by the act/omission on the part of the OP-1 to OP-3, the complainant has alleged deficiency in services and prayed for directions to OP-1 to OP-3 to pay total amount of consideration of Rs. 11,190/- alongwith interest @12% till realisation; Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical hardship; Rs.10,000/- as cost for purchasing Bisleri water containers and Rs.20,000/- towards legal and incidental expenses.

The complainant has annexed the copy of the invoice dated 11/10/2020 as Annexure A-1; photographs of the water purifier as Annexure A-2 (colly.) and Legal notice dated 09/04/2021 at Annexure A-3.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP-1 to OP-3. No one appeared on behalf of OP-1, despite service hence, they were proceeded Ex-parte on 03/01/2022. 

Written statement was filed on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3, where they have stated that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no cause of action; there was no delay and deficiency in services; the product was working perfectly etc.

It has been submitted by OP that there was no delay or any deficiency in the services and the product was working properly since the date of purchase and it was the complainant who had made many false and baseless complaints and did not let OP do its work. It was further submitted by them that the complainant had not filed any expert report to prove that the product was defective.  It was also submitted that Mr. Ashok Ray, owner of OP-1, had not advised the complainant to directly connect the water purifier with the main switch.  They have also submitted that the Legal notice was duly replied in the form of mails and telephonic conversation where they had offered settlement. Authority letter in favour of Sh. Devender Singh Gosai dated 01/12/2021 alongwith ID Card has been annexed with the written statement.

Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been reiterated and those of the written statement have been denied.  It was submitted that the OP had offered the complainant with the extension of warranty for three months and replacement of one of the candles, which was declined by the complainant. The complainant has reiterated that he was constrained to purchase water bottles for the purpose of drinking as the water purifier manufactured by OP-2 and OP-3 was defective, which has caused additional financial burden on him. The complainant has annexed copy of invoices of water bottles as Annexure ‘A’.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he has repeated the contents of the complaint.  He has got exhibited the Cash Memo dated 11/10/2020 as Annexure ‘1’. 

Sh. Devender Singh Gosai (Team Supervisor), Authorised Representative of Eureka Forbes was examined on behalf of OP-1.  They have repeated the contents of their written statement.  Though, in their affidavit it has been stated that service record is exhibited as Ex.OPW 1/1 and the manual with warranty terms and conditions is exhibited as Ex.OPW 1/2, no such document has been filed either with the written statement or with the evidence by way of affidavit 

We have heard the submission made by Ms. Shweta Saini, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in services on part of OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3.  It is the case of the complainant that all the OPs failed to repair and remove the defect in the Water purifier for which several complaints were registered on different dates from 20/01/2021 to 22/02/2021, which is within a period of three months from the date of purchase. If we look at the written statement filed by OP-2 and OP-3, it has been submitted that the OP has provided excellent services whenever required by the complainant and even in their evidence they have mentioned so. At the same time it has been also submitted that various offers for settlements were shared with the complainant through mails, but no such document has been placed on record by OP-2 and OP-3, therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against them as they have withheld the documents. As OP-2 and OP-3 have failed to rectify the defect in the water purifier, we hold OP-2 and OP-3 liable of deficiency in services. The complainant has also placed the bills in support of his allegations that he was constrained to buy packaged water worth Rs. 4,305/-.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we direct OP-2 and OP-3 as under;

1. Refund the cost of the “Eureka Forbes UV Water Purifier “Dr. Aquaguard Classic+” ie Rs.11,190/-.
2. Pay Rs. 4,305/- spent by the Complainant for buying packaged water.
3. Compensation of Rs. 2,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
4. Deposit Rs. 2,000/- in Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, else Rs. 15,495/- (Rs. 11,190/- plus Rs. 4,305/-) shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of order till compliance.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be uploaded on the website also. 

Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                      (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

Member                                             President