Delhi

North East

CC/10/2016

Ikbal Hussain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Direct Sale Situated - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 10/16

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Iqbal Hussain S/o Basheer Ahmad R/o House No. B-7/62, Gali No.1. Block-B Near Madina Masjid, Kabir Nagar, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Eureka Forbes Direct Sale 4-A, Hasanpur Village Near Hasanpur D.T.C. Depot Delhi-110092.   Eureka Forbes Ltd B-1/B-2, 701, 7th Floor Marathon Innova, Marathon Nextgen Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

08.01.2016 25.01.2019 25.01.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. Brief facts of the case narrated by the complainant in the present complaint are that he had purchased Aqua Guard Magna HD RO+UV water purifier model no. GWPDMGNRU00000 manufactured by OP2 from OP1 on 21.01.2015 vide invoice no. 1084106070 for a sum of Rs. 17,490/- inclusive of VAT. The said RO carried a warranty of 12 months from date of installation or 15 months from date of sale whichever is earlier subject to terms and conditions. However, the said RO got out of order barely 5 days after purchase when its stopped dispensing clean water and on intimation of the said problem by the complainant, the technician of OPs visited the premises of the complainant and repaired the same but the said RO functioned only for few days after which it again became out of order and was again repaired. Lastly, when the said RO got spoiled on 21.12.2015 and complainant lodged a complaint with the costumer care vide complaint no. 84577018, no technician visited his premises to repair the same and instead on telephonic conversation held with the officers of OPs the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as repair charges for the said RO despite the same being under warranty. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service which forced him to drink contaminated water and prayed for issuance of directions against the OPs to refund the cost of the RO i.e. Rs. 17,490/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 52,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and 12,000/- towards litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of bill / invoice dated 21.01.2015, copy of warranty terms and condition of the said RO and copy of itemize bills for calls made by the complainant to OP customer care and its executives.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 19.02.2016  and despite service effected on OP1 and OP2 on 06.04.2016 and 04.04.2016 respectively, none appeared and were therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.07.2016.
3. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant on 17.08.2016 and 18.04.2018 in reiteration of his grievance against the OPs.
4. We have heard the arguments forwarded by the complainant and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record.

To the specific query raised by the Forum regarding absence of any jobcard for repair of the said RO, the complainant submitted that the repair was done Free of Cost and no bill / jobcard was issued against the said repair by OPs. In absence of rebuttal by the OPs in view of their willful abstention from the proceedings in the present complaint and no defence put forth therein, we allow the present complaint on the basis of documents placed by the complainant on record in support of his grievance against OPs for deficiency of service in having sold a defective RO which did not last even a week of its purchase and had to undergo repeated repairs which were eventually refused by the OPs which demanded charges for the same despite the RO being under warranty. The liability in such cases of defect of manufacturer and dealer is coextensive as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission in catena of judgments.

5. We therefore, holding OPs guilty for deficiency of service and direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund the cost of RO i.e. Rs. 17,490/- to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental and physical harassment inclusive of litigation charges. Let the order be complied by both OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.      
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.
8. Announced on 25.01.2019

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member