Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/04/2021

K.Dhanasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Limited rep by its Manger - Opp.Party(s)

J.Vivekanandan

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

                                                                   Complaint presented on : 11.03.2020

                                                                    Date of disposal            : 30.11.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                     : PRESIDENT

                                   TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                                   THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.04/2021

 

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 30^th  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

K.Dhanasekar,

S/o.Kathirvel,

56B, M.S.Koil Street,

Royapuram, Chennai-600 013.                                                                                                                                                                             …..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

 

M/s.Eureka Forbes Limited,

Rep.by its Manager,

New No.560, Old No.616/1, T.H.Road,

Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 091.

…. Opposite Party

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.J.Vivekanandan and 2 others.

 

Counsel for  opposite party                : Ex-parte

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER-II

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to direct the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.17490/- (Product value of  Dr Aquaguard N Rich HD RO) with 18% simple interest per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.200000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and damage caused to the complainant and cost.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          According to complaint, the complainant was looking for a water purifier and the marketing executive of opposite party followed up with complainant and complainant requested for a product for maximum of Rs.10,000/- and the opposite party executive visited the complainant house and recommended “Dr. Aquaguard N Rich HD RO” and further promised that the product will produce 8 litres of drinking water by a wastage of 16 litres and based on this, the complainant purchased the said product for a sum of Rs.17,490/- on 08.04.2019 and it was fixed by the opposite party in the complainant’s house.  After 15 days of fixture, the complainant faced some difficulties in the product and till date 7 to 8 complaints were made to opposite party about the water purifier and the major problem is for producing 15 litres of drinking water there will be 80 litres of wastage and it reflects huge electricity bill.  Day by day the wastage of water is increasing and on complaint the opposite party solved the problem temporarily and till date no permanent solution was given by opposite party.  In November 2019, when complaint was given, the opposite party demanded Rs.2850/- and then the complainant sought guarantee from opposite party that same problem will not arise for which the opposite party did not respond and afterwards neglected the complainants call and till date no action was taken by the opposite party.  The complainant states that upon repeated requests and demands there was no reply from the opposite party and without any other option the complainant without purified drinking water  had caused ill health and mental agony.  Again the complainant had given a complaint on 19.11.2019 but there was no proper action from opposite party and it show the malafide intention to cheat the complainant by the opposite party.  The opposite party started giving evasive reply and no steps were taken by the opposite party and if it would have been known that water purifier will work for 2 to 3 months, no service, no response for customer complaints, the complainant would not have wasted the hard-earned money.  The complainant states that the complainant bought the water purifier and it is the duty of the opposite party to give good quality of water purifier and service within warranty period and by not doing so, is a gross unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the opposite party.  Under these circumstances the complainant had issued a legal notice on 25.11.2019 to opposite party to take back the product and refund Rs.17,490/-, apology letter to complainant and compensation for Rs.2,00,000/ for the mental agony and physical illness caused by the opposite party.  Having received the legal notice, the opposite party neither reply  nor service the product and remained silent.  Hence this complaint.

2.In spite of receipt of notice, the opposite party had not appeared before this Commission and hence, the opposite party were set ex-parte.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit, written argument, and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked.

4. POINT NO :1

          Perused the documents.  Heard the learned counsel for complainant.  According to complaint, the complainant was looking for a water purifier and the marketing executive of opposite party recommended “Dr. Aquaguard N Rich HD RO” and further promised that the product will produce 8 litres of drinking water by a wastage of 16 litres and based on this the complainant purchased the said product for a sum of Rs.17,490/- on 08.04.2019 and it was fixed by the opposite party in the complainant’s house.  The invoice for the said product is marked as Ex.A1.  After 15 days of fixture, the complainant faced some difficulties in the product and till date 7 to 8 complaints were made to opposite party about the water purifier and the major problem is for producing 15 litres of drinking water there will be 80 litres of wastage and it reflects huge electricity bill.  Day by day the wastage of water is increasing and on complaint the opposite party solved the problem temporarily and till date no permanent solution was given by opposite party.  In November 2019, when complaint was given, the opposite party demanded Rs.2850/- and then the complainant sought guarantee from opposite party that same problem will not arise for which the opposite party did not respond and afterwards neglected the complainants call and till date no action was taken by the opposite party had caused ill health and mental agony which shows the malafide intention of the opposite party.   The opposite party started giving evasive reply and no steps were taken by the opposite party and it would have been known that water purifier will work for 2 to 3 months, no service, no response for customer complaints, the complainant would not have wasted the hard-earned money.  The complainant claims that the complainant bought the water purifier, and it is the duty of the opposite party to give good quality of water purifier and service within warranty period and by not doing so, is a gross unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the opposite party.  Hence the complainant had issued a legal notice on 25.11.2019 to opposite party to take back the product and refund Rs.17,490/-, apology letter to complainant and compensation for Rs.2,00,000  for the mental agony and physical illness caused by the opposite party which is marked as Ex.A2.  Having received the legal notice, the opposite party neither replied  nor service the product and remaind silent.

          5.  The opposite party was set exparte on  30.03.2022 and have not filed any written version in spite of sufficient time granted to them and therefore they were set ex-parte in this complaint.                     

          6.  As per Ex.A1, the complainant had purchased water purifier from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.17,490/- and the same fixed by the opposite party at complainant’s house.   The allegations of the complainant were that after 15 days of fixture, for 15 litres of purified water nearly 80 litres of water being wasted and day by day it was increasing thus the electricity bill was raising alarmingly and when it was complained to the opposite party, it was solved temporarily but no permanent solution was given.  When a complaint was given in November 2019, the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.2,850/- and when the complainant wants guarantee for non-recurrence of problem, the opposite party did not answer and started evading the complainants’ calls.  At the same time, the complainant himself had admitted in his averments that the opposite party had attended the complaints initially but have not provided any permanent solution. But complainant failed to file any documentary proof of complaints made or any job card of opposite party attending the problem and existence of continuous problem in the product.    The complainant has not filed any proof regarding the wastage of 80 litres of water for production of 15 litres of drinking water and has not filed any proof to show that due to the faulty nature of the machine that there was huge electricity bill had arisen.

          7.  Based on the above and  the absence of any documentary proof regarding the complaints made by the complainant which were attended by the opposite party, this commission is of the considered view, that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the party of opposite party.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

8. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to the relief for refund of amount claim of the product value or  compensation for mental agony and sufferings as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

               In the result the Complaint is dismissed.  No costs

Dictated  by the Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30^th  day of  November 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                         PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	08.04.2019	Product invoice of the opposite party.
Ex.A2	25.11.2019	Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party with acknowledgement cards.
Ex.A3		Complainants Aadhaar card.

 

MEMBER  I                       MEMBER  II                         PRESIDENT