DATE OF FILING :10/01/18
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of June 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 07/18
Between
Complainant : T.R.Gopalakrishnan Nair,
Abhilash Bhavan ,
Anakkara P.O., Kumily,
Idukki District – 685 512
(By Adv: K.B.Selvam)
And
Opposite Party : 1 . The Chairman/Director,
Acqua Guard, B1/B2, 701,
7th Floor, Maruthan Innova,
Maruthan Next Gen off,
Ganapatrao, Kadammarg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai, Maharastra.
2 . The Branch Manager,
Aqua Guard Magna,
Office, Door No.09/204A,
Opp. Maneesha Gas Agency, Eroor,
Thripunithura, Ernakulam – 682 306
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
Complainant purchased a Water Purifier manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party marketing agency of the first opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.18,890/-. At the time of purchase the second opposite party assured that the water which is received through the purifier will be 100% purified. For installing this machine, the technician of the second opposite party charged Rs.1100/- from the complainant. Complainant further contented that from the next day of installation itself, it showed complaint and not functioning. This matter was intimated to the second opposite party immediately. But the opposite party reacted that,
(Cont....2)
-2-
the service of this instrument was not possible, since the complainant is residing far away from them. Alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties 1 and 2 complainant approached this Forum for getting back the amount which he was spent for purchasing the water purifier along with its installation charge and cost and compensation.
Notices issued to the opposite parties 1 and 2 are duly served. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are failed to appear before Forum for contesting the matter. After giving sufficient time for the opposite parties to appear before the Forum and filing written version, opposite parties set exparte. Ex parties evidence taken. Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents Ext.P1 is the retail invoice issued by the second opposite party dated 09/10/17.
Heard in detail.
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The Point:- While going through the averment in the complainant and by perusing Ext.P1 document, the Forum convinced that the allegation levelled against the opposite parties 1 and 2 are believable and unchallenged. Hence complaint allowed. The second opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.18,900 along with Rs.1100/- as installation charges to the complainant. The second opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till the realization
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
(Cont.....3)
-3-
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The retail invoice issued by the second opposite party dated 09/10/17.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
