DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 280/2016

No. DC/ Central/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

1. Sh. Muzayyana Khatoon (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Eureka Forbes Limited (in short OP). The complainant is a working women and doctor by profession, a Chief Medical Officer with Delhi Government. The complainant in her complaint have stated that OP is a company who deals in water purifiers by the name Eureka Forbes and provides its products and services to its customers. It is further the case of the complainant that OP approached to her through its executive to sell a particular R.O. named Dr. Aqua Guard and assured/promised that the company/OP provides three free services for every product sold by it but the OP did not honour and listen to the complaints of the complainant. On being assured about the quality of the product and services thereafter to the complainant, she  purchased an Acquaguard Maghna DH RO+ UV 1227006056009838 on 07.06.2015 by paying Rs. 16,616/- (sixteen thousand six hundred sixteen rupees only) through cheque drawn on Bank of Baroda Asaf Ali Road Branch, New Delhi. She has further alleged that delivery of the water purifier was also delayed for a month i.e. 01.07.2015 which was not earlier revealed by the OP. It is further her case that due to the delayed delivery of the water purifier, complainant suffered mental and physical loss and she was debarred from purified water even after purchasing and paying the amount for the same.
2. At the time of the installation of the aforesaid purifier on 01.07.2015, it was again assured by the OP that it will work in proper manner and the complainant would enjoy uninterrupted services of the OP as has been alleged in the instant complaint. It is also a case of complainant that she was shocked to find that water purifier was not working and called the OP on 02.07.2015 for lodging the complaint and officials of OP assured to send the agent within two days, though, the agent was sent after one week and on inspection of the water purifier, it was found that the sediment was not working and pre-filter which was to be installed with the purifier was not there. The complainant has further alleged that technician/ agent of OP prepared a report and said to come soon to change the same or install the required items but it was not done so.
3. Thereafter, the complainant again made the complaint through phone call on 06.10.2015 vide complaint no. 0083802388 through ID no. 1012054238 on 09.10.2015 and also vide complaint no. 0083851483 through customer ID no. 1012054238 on 15.10.2015 and on 15.10.2015 vide complaint no. 0083908214 and made regular calls to OP, who delayed the matter on one pretext or the other saying that the  executive is out of station and on leave as has been alleged.
4. The complainant has further submitted in its complaint that executive of the OP had visited on 20.10.2015 to the complainant and found the same problem as was found by the earlier agent of the OP in July 2015. However, OP did not bother to replace the same or correct the fault found in the product. She has further alleged that the initial installation of wrong, defective and non-functioning  of water purifier by the Eureka forbes by the OP that caused mental and physical torture to the complainant. A legal demand notice dated 22.06.2016 is also stated to have been sent to OP, whereby demanding to pay Rs. 16,616/-i.e. amount of purchase of said product along with the interest and damages but no effective steps was taken by the OP. Hence, this complaint having the following prayer:-

“that the opposite party may be summoned and directed to pay cost of the water purifier i.e. Rs. 16,616/- along with interest @ 24 % p.a. from the date of receipt of amount till realization, and damages amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs rupees only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service by the opposite party and also negligence in supplying purified water for which they still make tall claims.

It is further prayed that Hon’ble Forum may direct the opposite party to pay the other losses i.e. mental and physical and also the harassment on the part of the opposite party for which the present complainant is entitled with the permission of this Hon’ble Forum, along with the interest and cost of Legal Notice of Rs. 5,500/- and cost of litigation Rs. 20,000/- under the above said facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice.

5. The reply filed by OP is available on record, wherein, it has been stated that two free services are provided to customer during the one year warranty period and two free services were provided to the complainant on 19.10.2015 and 19.06.2016 as promised. OP has denied about any delay in installation of the said product and has further stated that the complainant was required to generate an installation request as per her convenience and thereafter the installation is done by the OP but the complainant failed to generate installation request.
6. It is also the case of the OP in its reply that the complainant placed the order on 07.06.2015 but the payment was not received by the OP on the date of placing the said order but much later. The said order form dated 07.06.2015 does not say the machine will be supplied immediately on receipt of the cheque. The invoice by the customer herself is dated 01.07.2015 which is issued after receipt of the payment and this proves the sale of the product by OP to complainant on 01.07.2015. It is also the stand of OP in its reply that the agreement of sale comes into effect only after receipt of the payment from the customer and not on the date of the receipt of the cheque. OP has further stated that machine was made functional at the time of installation and it had all the specification for purification. OP in its reply has also taken the stand that there is no documentary or any other evidence on record to prove any complaint was ever made as alleged. The complainant was provided first free service in warranty on 19.10.2015 and the machine was found to be working perfectly and purifying water. OP further states in its reply that as per the promise of warranty a complaint in writing has to be sent to the OP in case of a defect but there is no evidence on record to prove this. It has denied that any report was prepared by the technician as alleged. OP has taken further stand in its reply that neither any complaint was made by the complainant nor any technician visited the complainant as alleged. It has been further denied that any complaint was ever made during the entire warranty period. Based on the above submissions by the OP, it has denied all the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint and has expressed that demand of the complainant for replacement is arbitrarily, capricious, malicious and deficiency in service has also been denied by the OP.
7. In her rejoinder, the complainant, inter alia, has denied that the invoice filed by the customer is dated 01.07.2015 which is issued after receipt of payment and this proves the sale of machine was made by the OP to the complainant on 01.07.2015 and no new material facts have been pleaded in the rejoinder filed by the complainant. Rest of the averments made by OP in its reply have also been denied by the complainant.
8. Both the parties have filed their WAs which are available on record and in the WAs filed by them the contents of the complaint and reply have been repeated and no new material facts are found to be inserted there except admission on the part of the OP to the effect that the complainant booked the order on 07.06.2015 but made the payment through her cheque and payment was received on 01.07.2015.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions and counter contentions of the parties available on record. We have also gone carefully the documents, WAs, reply, affidavits filed by the parties.
10. While perusing the records available in the file, we find that:-

“1. No manual containing the terms and conditions of the sale purchase of the product under reference is available on record as mentioned in Para5 of the WA filed by the OP, wherein it states, inter alia, that “…..there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that the complainant ever sent A COMPLAINT IN WRITING as required by the terms of warranty (which are contained in the manual given to a customer with the product), during one year warranty period….”.

2. We also find on record a retail invoice amounting to Rs. 16,615.50/- (inv. No.:- 1795300670, date-01.07.2015, order no.-301035396 date-07.06.2015) generated by the OP and on the bottom of the said invoice it is typed/ written that “…. See overleaf for Declaration, Terms and Conditions,” However, overleaf of the said invoice is blank.

3. in Para 4 of its written reply, OP has stated, inter alia, “… complainant placed the order on 07.06.2015 but the payment was not received by the OP on the date of placing the said order but much later…….”., however, we find on record a document bearing no. 35396 dated 07.06.2015 filed by OP which is a receipt of the amount paid, wherein, it has been mentioned, inter alia, that “ received with thanks the sum of Rs. 16,616/- (sixteen thousand six hundred sixteen rupees only)” and in the said document name of the customer i.e. complainant’s name is mentioned but the said document does not mention whether the stated amount in the said document/receipt was received through cheque or cash. Therefore, the stand of the OP in Para 4 of its written reply that demand was not received on 07.06.2015 negates its stand and tilts in favour of complainant.

4. we also find on record the document to the effect that the complainant made the complaints about defects in the product as under:-

Thank you for contacting Eurohelpline. Your request no. is 0083802388 and Cust-id is 1012054238. To lodge a service req. type Req and SMS to 8082299333

Complaint no. on 6th October 0083851483 and on 9th oct. 0083802388

Complaint no. 0083908214 got registered with your mobile no. “

The aforesaid details and the availability of the documents on the record proves that complainant did complaint about the product to the OP.

11. In view of the aforementioned discussions, facts and circumstances of the case and documents available on record. We pass the following order:-

1. OP is directed to pay Rs. 16, 616/-, the cost of the water purifier to the complainant along with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.
2. OP is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as damages and for deficiency in service.
3. OP is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.
4. The aforesaid award/order shall be complied by the OP within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order failing which it will pay interest at the rate of 7% instead of 6% as stated in para 1 above. 

12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 6^th October of 2022.