09....17.08.2021....
The complainant is present today.
Today is fixed to deliver final order. Final order contains 6 pages and it is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Commission.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed ex-parte against both the opposite parties with cost Rs. 10,000=00 only.
All the opposite parties are directed jointly/severally to refund paid amount Rs. 22,140=00 only along with 6% p.a. simple interest since the date of filing this instant case on 31/12/2020 to the realization and within 60 days from the date of issuing this order. They are also directed to take back the installed machine from the house of the complainant on the same day of refunding the paid amount with interest.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay jointly/severally compensation amount Rs. 15,000=00 ( Rs. Fifteen thousand) only within 60 days from the date of issuing this order for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
Let copies of the order be supplied to all the parties concerned in either speed post /registered post free of cost as per rule.
The final order be also available in www.confonet.nic.in .
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700144
C.C.NO. 109 of 2020
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
31.12.2020 31.12.2020 17/8/2021
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member : Jagadish Chandra Barman
Mrs. Sangita Paul
Complainant:- Mrs. Anamika Barua
Wife of Ritam Barua
Karimpur Ucchepota
Near Ujwal Sangha Club
P.O.-Ucchepota
P.S.-Narendrapur
Kolkata-700150.
Versus
Opposite Party(s) : 1. Authorized Signatory of Eureka Forbes Limited
P IJ Ajay Nagar Survey Park
P. S.-Purba Jadavpur
Kolkata- 700075.
2. Authorized Signatory of Eureka Forbes Limited
7, Chakraberia Road, South Kolkata-700025
Sri Jagadish Chandra Barman, Member (M)
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows:
This is a complaint case under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019
The complainant Mrs. AnamikaBarua has been living in the above mentioned area which is badly affected by arsenic water and for this reason she [complainant]and her family members have been seriously suffering physically. The Doctors also advised them to arrange purified water and the petitioner then took decision to purchase a water purifying machine. The petitioner searched and Mr.Bishwanath Bose, an agent of the Oppososite Party no- 1, met with her. The agent then proposed her to purchase a water purifying machine namely “DR. AQUAGUARD NRICH HD RO +UV+MTDS”. The said agent visited the house of the petitioner and assured that DR. AQUAGUARD NRICH HD RO +UV+MTDS” machine would be very good to provide purified water. Then the complainant agreed to purchase the said machine by Rs 19,990=00 only.
The O.P. No 1 supplied to install the said machine and whenever the authorized agent tried to set the machine in her house , the authorized agent could not succeed but advised her to purchase additional instrument namely GWPDDINLROOOOO DR AQUAGUARD IRONIL to get purified water by Rs. 2,150=00 only. In this situation, the complainant was compelled to agree and also paid Rs. 2,150=00 only. Therefore she paid in total [Rs. 19,990+Rs.2,150=00 only]Rs. 22,140=00 only.
She provided the O.P. No 1 Rs. 19,990=00 only on 16/01/2020 vide invoice no-323320051146 and sales order no-135071443 dated 16/01/2020by 6 cheque vide cheque no- 54331 dated- 19.2.2020, 54332 dtd-18/3/2020, 54334 dated-5.6.2020, 54333 dated-10.6.2020, 54335 dated-18.6.2020 and 54336 dated 18/7/2020; and invoice no-323320052739 dated-25.01.2020 of Rs. 2,150=00 only.
But unfortunately after one month, the said water purifying machine was not functioning properly and various types of problem like non-storage of water properly, slow supply of water, non-functioning of adapter, vibration of the machine, abnormal sound, unhygienic water supply etc.occurred. All the problems were informed to both the opposite parties in time. The opposite parties also sent their representative to solve the problems by replacing the machine but in vain. The replaced machine did not run properly as the replaced machine was also defective. Again it was communicated with the O.Ps. over e-mails and physically. Thereafter, O.Ps. did not try to solve the problems of the purified machine. The complainant thereafter requested the O.Ps. to return her paid amount and take back their water
purifying machine.The opposite parties did not pay any heed upon the machinery problems and became a deaf and dump. The complainant did not get purified water from the supplied purified machine.
All the problems relating to the water supply machinery were within the warranty period of one year. But both the O.Ps. refused to do any further needful action to run the water purifying machine. According to the complainant, this is a clear case of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency of service occurred on behalf of the O.Ps.
Hence the complainant filed this complaint case before this learned DCDR Commission on 31/12/2020 and show cause notices were served in time. All the notices were received by the O.Ps.; Both the O. Ps. were absent. Hence, this case is remained unchallenged. On the other hand, the complainant was present almost all days before the Learned Commission. The complainant argued in favour of her. So the matter was heard ex-parte.
The complainant has prayed to this Commission
1. to refund to the petitioner the paid amount of Rs. 22,140=00 only with interest.
2. to issue order to O.Ps. to take back the defective water purifying machine.
3. to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 1,00,000=00 only as compensation amount for harassment and mental agony.
4. to pay Rs. 30,000=00 only as cost of litigation.
5. to issue any order for relief as the Commission may think fit.
Upon the averments of both sides, the following points are formulated:-
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
1. is the complainant a consumer?
2. Are the O. Ps. guilty of deficiency of services and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief /relieves as prayed for.
EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT
The complainant submitted a petition on 29.7.2021 to treat her complaint petition as evidence and her prayer was considered.
DECICIONS WITH REASONS.
Point no. 1, 2, & 3.
The complainant Mrs. Anamika Barua was very much interested to get arsenic free water for her family and she paid Rs. 19,990=00 only on 16/01/2020 at first and Rs. 2150=00 only on25.01.2020. In total she paid Rs.22140=00. She paid all her money to the opposite parties by cheques vide cheque no- 54331 dated- 19.2.2020, 54332 dtd-18/3/2020, 54334 dated-5.6.2020, 54333 dated-10.6.2020, 54335 dated-18.6.2020 and 54336 dated 18/7/2020.Kavita Gandhi on behalf of the O.Ps also issued receipts to the complainant vide invoice no-323320051146 and sales order no-135071443 dated 16/01/2020 and invoice no-323320052739 dated-25.01.2020. Therefore, there is no doubt that the complainant is a consumer under Section 2/7[i] of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
It is relevant to mention that the opposite parties supplied and installed in the house of the complainant a water purifying machine namely “DR. AQUAGUARD NRICH HD RO +UV+MTDS” with an additional instrument namely GWPDDINLROOOOO DR AQUAGUARD IRONIL.O.Ps also issued receipts in favour of the complainant. But the installed machine did not serve the purpose of the complainant. After one month, there was several problems occurred like non-storage of water properly, slow supply of water, non-functioning of adapter, vibration of the machine, abnormal sound, unhygienic water supply etc. The opposite parties tried to solve all problems by their experts even by changing / replacing new machine. But their efforts were in vain. They received full payment from the purchaser here the complainant. But the complainant did not get purified water. The complainant also requested to refund the paid amount of Rs.22140=00 only and take back the installed purified machine several times. The O.Ps. did not pay any heed upon the anxiety, harassment and mental agony. .Hence, there is certainly deficiency of service under Section 2/11(i) and unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relieves as she sought. All the opposite parties are jointly /severally liable to be penalized Rs. 10,000 only as costing, Rs. 15,000 only as compensation amount for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice occurred on behalf of all opposite parties. The O.Ps. are also directed to take back the installed machine after refunding paid amount Rs. 22,140=00 only
In the long run, the complaint case is succeeded.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed ex-parte against both the opposite parties with cost Rs. 10,000=00 only.
All the opposite parties are directed jointly/severally to refund paid amount Rs. 22,140=00 only along with 6% p.a. simple interest since the date of filing this instant case on 31/12/2020 to the realization and within 60 days from the date of issuing this order. They are also directed to take back the installed machine from the house of the complainant on the same day of refunding the paid amount with interest.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay jointly/severally compensation amount Rs. 15,000=00 ( Rs. Fifteen thousand) only within 60 days from the date of issuing this order for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
Let copies of the order be supplied to all the parties concerned in either speed post /registered post free of cost as per rule.
The final order be also available in www.confonet.nic.in .
