Delhi

East Delhi

CC/742/2014

BALAKRIHNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AQUA FIND SERVICE - Opp.Party(s)

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 742/14

 

Shri Balakrishna Panda

123-D, Pocket-6

Mayur Vihar, hase – III

Delhi – 110 096                                                                              ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Aqua Find Service

Regd. Aqua R.O. Service Centre

C-17, G.P. Main Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                                       ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 21.08.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 06.02.2017

Judgment Passed on: 07.02.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Balakrishna Panda against M/s. Aqua Find Service (OP), praying for extending the service free of cost for one more year; Rs. 20,000/- compensation on account of mental tension and physical strain and cost of petition. 

2.        Facts in brief are that the complainant have a contract with M/s. Aqua Find Service on 08.09.2012 for Annual Maintenance Service of Aquaguard (water filter of Eureka Forbes make compact model) for repair and maintenance of the product for a period of 2 years for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-.  The payment was made in advance at the signing of the contract.  It has been stated  that except two or three visits (last visit on 04.08.2013), the firm has never turned up for the periodical service to replace the carbon and candle etc. of the aqua guard nor even attended to the calls of repair the product as and when required.  They did not attend to their calls.  Thus, they have failed to provide service to the complainant, which they have agreed to provide as per agreement.  Thus, the complainant has stated that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP and have prayed for extending the service free of cost for one more year; Rs. 20,000/- compensation on account of mental tension and physical strain and cost of petition.

3.        Notice of the complaint was given to OP.  However, they did not put the appearance.  Thus, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.        In support of its case, the complainant did not file any evidence on record.  We have perused the material placed on record.  Since the complainant has failed to put evidence on record inspite of opportunity, the complaint cannot be said to be proved.   That being so, the complaint deserve its dismissal and the same is dismissed.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President