STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :        95 of 2015

Date of Institution:      23.01.2015

Date of Decision :       22.05.2015

1.     M/s Eureka Forbes Limited, District Sales Office, SCO 195, Ist Floor, Sector-16, Panchkula.

2.     M/s Eureka Forbes Limited, B1/B2, 701, 7^th Floor, Marathon Next Gen, Marathon Innova, Off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Prale, Mumbai-400013.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2

Versus

Brij Gupta s/o Sh. Sat Parkash Gupta, Resident of H.No.386, Sector-8, Panchkula.

                             Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Ms. Jyoti, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Brij Gupta-respondent in person.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated December 12^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula, whereby complaint No.163/2014, filed by Brij Gupta-complainant (respondent herein) alleging deficiency in service on the part of Eureka Forbes-Opposite Parties for selling a defective water purifier (Aquaguard Green RO) to him, was accepted. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is as under:-

“(i)     To replace the Aqua guard Green Total Enhance Green RO with new one or to pay an amount of Rs.14,490/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the Aqua guard i.e. 04.09.2013.

(ii)      To pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.”

2.      The complainant purchased Aqua guard Green RO (for short ‘RO’) from the opposite party No.1 on September 4^th, 2013 for Rs.14,490/- vide invoice Annexure C-1. It did not give proper service, being defective.  TDS level of water was assured between 80-100. However, it always remained above 300. Even despite change of membrane, it did not give desirable result. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite parties did not appear despite personal service and they were proceeded exparte.

3.      In his evidence, the complainant produced Service Job Sheet of the RO Exhibits C-2 and C-3. The District Forum after appreciating the evidence, directed the opposite parties to replace the RO with a new one or to refund the price of the RO, that is, Rs.14,490/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the RO.

4.      A perusal of the file shows that the RO was purchased by the complainant on September 4^th, 2013, the warranty period of which was upto September 28^th, 2014. The evidence available on file established that the RO was not giving satisfactory service to purify the water and was required to be changed. There has been repeated complaints within the warranty itself. Thus, the District Forum was justified in issuing direction to the opposite parties and the impugned order does not require any interference.

5.      The appeal is dismissed.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.10,617/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

CL