DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.440/2014

Dr. Susmita Alok

W/o Dr. Arun Kumar Alok

R/o J-33, Second Floor,

Saket, New Delhi-110017                                              ….Complainant

Versus

Aqua Force Sales & Service

Service Department Head Office 337A,

Sant Nagar, East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110048

Also at:-

Aqua Force Sales & Service

Service Department Head Office E-2, B-4,

Jhilmil Colony, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-110092

Also at:

Aqua Force Sales & Service

Service Department Head Office B-7,

Sawal Nagar, Sadiq Nagar,

Delhi-110049                                                       ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 19.11.14                                                             Date of Order        :  24.09.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member           

O R D E R

Case of the Complainant in brief appears to be that the OP had contacted her for services for Aqua Guard RO (Zero B of Pristime make) which she accepted and paid Rs.12,000/- vide cheque No.288458 dated 14.11.2012 for 3 years and the contract was valid from 24.11.12 to 23.11.15. One of the mechanics of the OP tried to misbehave with her. It was difficult to get the services from the OP. Even after paying a sum of Rs.12,000/- in advance she had to spend Rs.5500/- towards the repair of the equipment from other agent. She sent a legal notice on 30.09.2014 but no reply was received. Due to improper service she had suffered diarrhea and she remained on the bed rest leading to the loss of earning and lot of inconvenience as she is a dental surgeon and prior appointments were given to the patients. According to her, she is entitled to the following amounts:-

a.       Receipt of invoice of OP                      =        Rs.12,000/-

b.       Expenses on call to the other

          agency for repairing the machine      =        Rs.21,000/-

          Total loss of practice                          =        Rs.21,000/-

          Legal notice                                       =        Rs.7,500/-

Hence this complaint for the above stated amounts alongwith 12% p.a. interest.

OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 25.08.15.

Complainant has filed her affidavit in exparte evidence.

In this case it transpires that the complaint filed by the Complainant is vague and not specific. The Complainant has mentioned in the complaint that the mechanic of the OP has misbehaved with him but she has not given any date or specific instance in this regard. The Complainant has stated that she had spent Rs.5500/- for repair of the aqua guard by other agent but she has not submitted any document in this regard. The reason for not repairing the aqua guard by the OP has not been mentioned in the complaint.  We hold that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss it with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(Naina Bakshi)                                                               (N. K. Goel)

Member                                                                          President

Announced on    24.09.2016