Delhi

East Delhi

CC/834/2012

SATYA VIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

EUKEKHA FORBES - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 834/2012

 

Shri Satya Vir Singh

S/o Shri Vijal Pal Singh

R/o B-685, MIG flats

East of Loni Road

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 093                                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.     

 

1. The Manager

Eureka Forbes

4A, Hasanpur Village

I.P. Extension

Near Sani & Sai Baba Mandir

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092         

 

Also at:

Eureka Forbes Service Head Quarters

Shedule No. 42, P-3/C

Muneshwara Layout

Haralkunte

Kudly, Bangalore – 560 068

 

2. The General Manager

Eureka Forbes

Regd. Office at :

7, Charaberia Road

Kolkata – 7 00025                                                                         …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 17.12.2012

Order Reserved on: 19.02.2021

Order Passed on: 26.02.2021

 

CORUM:

Shri Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President)

Shri Bariq Ahmad (Member)

 

Order By: Shri Bariq Ahmad (Member)

 

 

ORDER

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging therein that he was enjoying the uninterrupted defect free services of the OP for water purifier, model Crystal, with warranty period of one year.  Thereafter, complainant had entered into an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC)  for two years with the OP for the period from 19.04.2011 to 18.04.2013 against the payment of subscription of Rs. 2,100/- vide cheque no. 800031 dated 28.04.2011, drawn on Dena Bank, Sabzi Mandi branch, Shakti Nagar, Delhi,  favouring OP, the cheque was duly encashed by the OP and invoice was also issued in favour of the complainant.  It was alleged that despite having paid the amount to OP and lodging complaint.  Service was not provided in respect of alleged contract to the complainant.  The complainant alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the said contract, the OP will provide the full maintenance of the above said water purifier.  They will provide the free replacement of spare parts and two periodical services annually of the said purifier. 

2.         The complainant further alleged that on 20.10.2011, some problems were occurred in the said purifier, as the water purifier did not produce the clean drinking water and the taste of water produced by the purifier become bad to worse.  Thereafter, the complainant made complaint to the customer care of the OP.  On 16.06.2012 vide complaint no. 87096753, the service executive of the OP visited the house of the complainant and assured the complainant that he will take corrective measures immediately, but of no effect.  It is also alleged that within one month, complainant shall made another complaint on customer care number which upon the executive of OPs will fully neglect to register the complaint  However, after the much efforts of the complainant, he was successful to register  a complaint no. 87223356, but the problem was not resolved.  It is alleged that the complainant made repeated complaints and reminders, but to no result. 

            Aggrieved by the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 26.07.2012 to the OPs.  The OP failed to reply or comply the same.  Thereafter, the complainant also sent a reminder of the said legal notice dated 26.08.2012 sent through speed post on 27.08.2012 to the OPs, but they failed to give any satisfactory reply despite several complaints, legal notice and reminder by the complainant alleged that his grievances has not been redressed.  In spite of the notice, neither any corrective measures were taken nor the water purifier service performed as per the contract.  This led the complainant to file the present complaint.

Finding no action the part of the OPs, a complaint for the refund of the amount of Rs. 2,100/- alongwith interest, Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages and compensation and Rs. 11,0000/- towards cost of litigation was filed before this Forum.

3.         In response to the notices issued to the OPs, they appeared on 03.01.2013 and received the copy of complaint, but did not file any reply/written statement.  The case proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 06.03.2013.

            In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit dated 01.05.2013.  The complaint also filed on record copy of invoice cum receipt for service contract no. 5000041347 dated 19.04.2011 with terms and conditions of the contract issued on behalf of OPs.  He is also placed on record the copy of legal notice dated 26.07.2012 which he served upon he OPs for Redressal of his grievances.  He has also placed on record a copy of reminders of legal notice dated 26.08.2012 with original sped post slip dated 27.08.2012 which he had served upon the OPs with the direction to redress of his grievances of earlier legal notice dated 26.07.2012.   

4.         Vide order dated 02.09.2013, the Forum dismissed the case.

5.         The complainant preferred an appeal against the order dated 02.09.2013 vide First Appeal No. 1133/13 before Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi, vide order dated 11.07.2016.  Hon’ble State Commission directed to the complainant to appear before District Forum on 13.09.2016 with the directions that before proceeding further in the matter, the District Forum shall issue notice to OPs.

            This Forum issued notice to the OPs.  On 06.03.2019, Shri Mohit, AR on behalf of OP appeared and received the copy, however, none has appeared on behalf of OP.  On 21.08.2019, their right to file additional evidence stands closed.

6.         The complainant also filed additional evidence by way of affidavit dated 23.09.2016 with copy of passbook of complainant, letter dated 08.09.2016 issued by Dena Bank, Sabzi Mandi branch, Delhi – 110 007.

7.         We have heard the arguments advanced at the bar.  This Forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of the evidence, additional evidence, and documents placed on record.  The case of the complainant has remained consistent and cannot be doubted.  There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant.  It is revealed that the complainant had purchased the water purifier, model Crystal, with warranty period of one year.  Thereafter, complainant had entered into an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC)  for two years with the OP for the period from 19.04.2011 to 18.04.2013 against the payment of subscription of Rs. 2,100/- vide cheque no. 800031 dated 28.04.2011, drawn on Dena Bank, Sabzi Mandi branch, Shakti Nagar, Delhi,  favouring OP.  The cheque was duly encashed by the OP on 24.04.2011 from account no. 012910002756 of the complainant and invoice has also issued in favour of the complainant. 

The complainant had sent a legal notice dated 26.07.2012 to the OPs.  A reminder of the said legal notice dated 26.08.2012 sent through speed post on 27.08.2012 to the OPs.  In spite of the notice, neither any corrective measures were taken nor the water purifier service performed as per the contract. 

As the notice as well as reminders were not replied and was simply ignored.  In a number of cases, courts have held that where serious allegations are made against a person in al notice, the allegations are not rebuted and the notice is simply ignored, a presumption may be drawn that allegations made in the notice were true [See Kaluram vs. Sitaram, 1980 RLR (NOTE44) and Metropolis Travels vs. Sumit Kalra and Anr., 98, 2002, DLT-573 (DB)].

A similar situation obtains in the present case.   A presumption need to be drawn in the complaint and the averments made in the affidavit are true.  The OPs on their part have not rebuted the presumptions by any evidence whatsoever.

We want to draw attention that water purifier continyously filters water and produce pure and healthy water from contaminated water, while this process the filter of the water purifier get foulded by several impurities.   Thus, service of water purifier is essential to get pure and healthy water without any trouble and also increases the efficiency of the water purifiers system.  The customer satisfaction work is first priority as water purifier will receive proper care as it has several complex spare parts, but OP on their part have not rebutted the presumption by any evidence whatsoever where the “Hire Best & Get Best” and “Drink Healthy and Like Healthy” are logo of the OP. 

The evidence filed by the complainant was remained unrebutted.  We are, therefore, constraint to hold that water purifier installed at the residence of the complainant by the OPs was not serviced and defective and it did not work properly.  We, further hold that despite several complaint with respect to dis-functioning of the water purifier, the OPs had failed to take corrective measures. 

We, therefore, hold OPs guilty and deficient in service and unfair trade practice to the complainant and direct them jointly and severally as under:-

1. To refund to the complaint a sum of Rs. 2,100/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of service contract till its realization.
2. To pay the complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony, suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

            The above amount shall be paid by the OPs jointly or severally to the complainant with9in 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% p.a. from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment.

            If OPs failed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum under Section 71 and 72 as per CPA, 2019. 

            Copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation of the CPA Regulations, 2019.  Thereafter, file be consigned to Record Room

 

 

(BARIQ AHMAD)                                                         (DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR)

       Member                                                                   President