Haryana

Rewari

CC/439/2012

Bhani Shai Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aqua Sun Life R.O. Water Purifier - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Dinesh Singh

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, REWARI
HARYANA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/439/2012
 
1. Bhani Shai Yadav
S/o Sheodan Singh, Vill. Pali, Distt. Rewari
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sh. Raj Kumar Tewatia PRESIDENT
 
For the Complainant:Sh. Dinesh Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,   REWARI.

 

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No:  439 of 2012.

Date of Institution: 25.10.2012. 

Date of Decision:    10.03.2015.

 

 

Mr. Bhani Shai Yadav sons of Shri Sheodan Singh r/o village Pali, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.

 

                                                                                …….Complainant.

 

                                      Versus

 

  1. M/s Aqua Sun life Reverse Osmosis Water Purifier, 110, Ist Floor, Shiv Palace Gurudwara Road, near Canara Bank, Gurgaon, 122001 through its Manager,

 

  1. M/s Aqua Sun life Reverse Osmosis Water Purifier, Service Centre and branch office at Shop no.5, Laxmi Mall, Circular Road, Rewari, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari through its proprietor,

 

  1. M/s Aqua Sunlife Reverse Osmosis  Water Purifier , near CHC, Ateli Mandi, Distt. Mohindergarh through its proprietor Mr. Rajesh Kumar.

 

                                                                        …...Opposite  Parties.

 

 

Complaint Under Section 12  of Consumer Protection Act

 

 

        Before: Shri  Raj  Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT

                      Shri Kapil Dev Sharma…………………MEMBER

 

                      

Present :         Shri Dinesh Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                       Opposite parties exparte.

 

                                                ORDER

 

 

 Per  Raj Kumar President

 

                             Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn of details, is that the Water Purifier (RO system)  purchased by  the complainant from opposite party no.3 on 6.7.2012 vide bill no. 306 for an amount of Rs. 8200/- was installed at his premises  by opposite parties  with the assurance of providing  one  year free service.  It is alleged that the said system is of poor quality and is having manufacturing defect and as such it stopped working just after two days of the installation.  On the asking of opposite parties, it was brought to the shop of opposite party no.3 nine times by incurring a sum of Rs. 700/- each time for its repairs but even then the system is not working properly having some manufacturing defect.  The complainant requested the opposite parties several times to replace the defective RO system   but they flatly refused; hence this complaint .

2)                         On notice, opposite parties did not put in appearance  in spite of due service effected through registered post and as such  they were proceeded exparte.

3)                         We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case available on the file thoroughly.

4)                         The aforesaid version of the complainant is duly supported by a photo copy of bill book Ex. CW-1/A which shows  that the complainant purchased a Water Purifier system ( RO)  in question from the opposite  parties for an amount of Rs. 8200/- on 6.7.2012 and since  the said system became defective just after two days of its installation, the complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 for its repair  and since it could not repair the same due to non availability  of parts, the system was got repaired from opposite party no.3  for many times but the same could not be put in order perfectly.    The complainant also sent a legal notice to the opposite parties for redressal of his grievance but they did not pay any heed towards his repeated requests.  Not only this, the opposite parties dared not to appear before this Forum to belie the aforesaid version of the complainant in spite of  due service effected through registered post  and opted to remain exparte.   As such, the aforesaid pleaded version of the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged which is liable to be accepted being trustworthy.  Even otherwise, installing a defective RO system and thereafter not removing the grievance of the complainant , is certainly a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which  the complainant cannot be left to suffer for no fault on his part.

5)                         Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party no.1 either to replace the defective RO system in question with a new one or to refund its price of Rs. 8200/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of  filing of the complaint till payment.  The complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs. 2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/- against the said opposite party.  Let the  compliance of the order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above awarded amount shall fetch penal interest  @ 12% p.a.  Ordered accordingly.

 

Announced

10.3.2015.                          

                                                                    President,

                                                          Distt. Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Rewari.

 

                    Member, 

             DCDRF,Rewari.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sh. Raj Kumar Tewatia]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.