Case No. 148/2016   

IN THE MATTER OF

Smt Asha Sharma  W/o Shri Vinay Kumar Sharma  R/o MIG 82 Swarna Jayanti Nagar,  Aligarh
 

                                                         V/s

1. Branch Manager, Eureka Forbes Ltd. Aligarh H.no. HIG 53 Avantika Part 1 ADA Colony, Ramghat Road, Aligarh

2. Branch Manager, Eureka Forbes Ltd. Mumbai 81/82,701, 7^th floor MarathonInnova MarathonNext Gen off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai 400013

3. Branch Manager, Eureka Forbes Ltd. Gautam Budha Nagar, Khasara no.356 Village Acceja, Tehsil Dadri GautamBudha Nagar

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1. The Ops be directed to refund the amount Rs.18689/deposited by the complainant for RO machine.
2. The Ops be directed to install RO machine of the superior quality.
3. Cost of the case Rs.5000/ be awarded.
4. Any other relief including compensation for harassment.

2. The Complainant has stated that he had purchased a DR. Aquaguard Megna HD RO+UV on 6.10.2015 from the Ops with one year warranty. Sri Manish Kumar Singh visited the house of complainant on 30.9.2015 and contacted for sale of the RO machine and induced the complainant for purchasing RO machine by stating the plus points of the machine. Complainant having placed reliance  on him purchased the RO machine for Rs.18689/ and paid the amount in 10 installments through postdated cheques. On 6.10.2015 Ro machine was installed at the house with one year guaranty and providing service in interval of 3 months. It was told that the water having 50 to 100 TDS is fit for drinking. The machine was installed on 6.10.2015 whereas on the service card the period of warranty was mentioned from 30.9.2015 to 29.9.2016 instead of 6.102016. On 4.9.2016 technician of the company told that the filters and membranes of the machine are defective and have to be replaced on payment of Rs. 8500/ Ops did not replace the machine hence the case was filed.
3. Op no.1 submitted in its reply that Mrs. Asha Sharma had purchased aqua guard RO on 6.10.2015 from the company EUREKA FORBES . Due to some fault in filters, the machine had been giving high TDS. On the complaint, technician attended and rectified the defects. The faulty filters were replaced. There was no technical fault.
4.  Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op has filed no affidavit.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. Complainant has stated on oath in her affidavit that the technician of the company demanded Rs.8500/ on 4.9.2016 for replacement of filters and membrane. This fact was not specifically rebutted by the Op. The day of routine checkup on 4.9.2016 was made within the period of warranty. Therefore Complainant is entitled for replacement of the machine or for the refund of the money paid by her. Under the circumstances of the case complainant may be permitted to get the refund of Rs 18689/.
8. The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant.
9. We hereby direct the Ops to refund jointly and severally  the amount Rs.18689/with pendente lite and future interest at the rate 10% per annum  to the complainant with compensation Rs.5000/ and litigation expenses Rs.5000/.
10. Op shall comply with the direction within a month failing which OPs shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.