Punjab

Amritsar

CC/16/388

Navtej Singh Pahwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eruka Forbes Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inderjit Lakhra

12 Oct 2016

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
SCO 100, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue
Amritsar
Punjab
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/388
 
1. Navtej Singh Pahwa
37, Green Avenue, Amritsar
Amritsar
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Eruka Forbes Ltd.
Race Course Road,Amritsar
Amritsar
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh. S.S.Panesar PRESIDENT
  Anoop Lal Sharma MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 12 Oct 2016
Final Order / Judgement

 

 

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S.Panesar,President.

  1. Navtej Singh Pahwa complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant purchased one water purifier being manufactured/marketed by opposite party  with Annual Maintenance Contract on 11.8.2015 for Rs. 16,190/-. The said water purifier was given the extended Annual Maintenance contract for two years for Rs. 700/- charged from the complainant after the expiry of one year which expired on 10.8.2016 which includes periodical services and changing of filter candle, sediment filter and other consumables. The said water purifier stopped working after one month of its installation. Opposite party was repeatedly informed about the same and send their engineers to rectify the defects in the water purifier. But till the filing of the present complaint the water purifier is not functioning . Complainant made several complaints  to the opposite party but to no avail. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
  1. Opposite party be directed to set right the water purifier to the satisfaction of the complainant or in the alternative to replace the same with new one  or in the alternative to refund the sale price of the same i.e. Rs. 16190/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from 11.8.2015 till payment.
  2. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- may also be awarded alongwith adequate litigation expenses to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Opposite party did not opt to put in appearance despite service, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

3.       In his bid to prove the case Sh.Inderjit Lakhra,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into ex-parte evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of receipt Ex.C-2, copies of e-mails Ex.C-3 to  C-5 and closed the ex-parte evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

5.       From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that complainant purchased one Water purifier manufactured/marketed by opposite party with Annual Maintenace Contract on 11.8.2015 for a sum of Rs. 16,190/- vide bill/invoice Ex.C-2. It is further in evidence that the opposite party did not provide any maintenance service to the complainant despite repeated requests. The water purifier was also given extended annual  maintenance contract  for two years on charging of Rs. 700/- from the complainant  after the expiry of one year of first warranty which expired on 10.8.2016.The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as the opposite party despite due service did not opt to appear and contest the present complaint and thereby impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant. It is in evidence that complainant lodged three complaints Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 on different dates. But, however, the complaints of the complainant were not redressed by the opposite party without assigning any reason. All this shows that the opposite party is deficient in service. As such the instant complaint stands allowed and the opposite party is directed to provide regular periodical services to the complainant regarding the water purifier during the extended warranty period w.e.f. 11.8.2016 uptil 10.8.2018 and repair the water purifier free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. Since the opposite party has failed to provide maintenance/periodical service during warranty period w.e.f. 11.8.2014 to 10.8.2015  as such, it was  deficient in service, therefore, the complainant is also entitled to compensation which is assessed at Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand only)  besides Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Instant complaint stands ex-parte allowed accordingly. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

 

Dated:  12.10.2016.                                                     (

 
 
[ Sh. S.S.Panesar]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Anoop Lal Sharma]
MEMBER

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.