Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/160

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Limited - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 160 dated 01.09.2020               

                                         Date of decision: 03.08.2022. 

 

Amrik Singh s/o S.Manjeet Singh r/o H.No.6628/A, St.No.3, New Hargobind Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. 94631-95000.                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Eureka Forbes Limited, Lal Thapar Industrial Area, Majri Grant, Dehradun-248140 through its Director/Partner/authorized signatory.

2.Eureka Forbes Limited, B1/B2, 701, 7^th Floor, Marathon NextGen, Marathon Innova, Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, India-400013 through its M.D./Director/C.E.O./Partner.

3.Sukhmani Powertronics, Opposite Central Bank, Brown Road, Subhani Building Chowk, Ludhiana 141008, through its Prop./Partner.

                                                                                       …..Opposite parties

               Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWIDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person.

For OPs                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that on 14.01.2020, the complainant purchased one Aquaguard Reviva UV NXT water purifier from the OP3 for a sum of Rs.11,800/-. The water purifier was installed on the same day by the technician of the OPs. The technician checked the TDS of normal water as well as that of water purifier but he did not disclose anything about the same to the complainant. After installation, when the complainant read the booklet of the water purifier, he came to know that the water purifier was compatible in the area having TDS level  of water less than 200 TDS whereas TDS level in the area of the complainant is more than 350 TDS. On 15.01.2020, the complainant lodged a complaint with the OPs on their customer care and they assured to refund the amount of the aquaguard but later on the OPs neither replaced the water purifier nor refunded the cost of the same. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.11,800/- charged from the complainant and be also made to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OPs did not turn up despite service through registered posts and were proceeded against exparte.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. Further, complainant tendered in additional evidence documents Ex.C8 to Ex.C12.

4.                We have heard the complainant in person and have also gone through the record.

5.                It is the case of the complainant that the water purifier sold to the complainant by the OPs for a sum of Rs.11,800/- was suitable in the area where the TDS range of water was upto 200 mg/ltr as is evident from the brochure Ex.C8. However, the complainant has claimed that TDS range of the water in the area where he resides is more than 300 which is evident from document Ex.C12. All these facts have been alleged by the complainant in the complaint and the supportive affidavit Ex.CA. The evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted as the OPs did not appear to contest the case. Therefore, it stands proved on record that the water purifier in question which was not suitable in the area where house of the complainant is situated was wrongfully sold to the complainant as it would not serve the purpose for which the product was bought by the complainant. This clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the given circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to take back the product in question and refund the cost of the water purifier of Rs.11,800/- to the complainant along with composite cost of Rs.5000/-.

6.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed ex-parte with an order that the OPs shall take back the product in question and refund the cost of the water purifier of Rs.11,800/- to the complainant along with composite compensation and cost of Rs.5000/-. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

 

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

                           (Jaswinder Singh)                             (K.K.Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.08.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma