DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.480 of 2022
Date of institution: 29.07.2022 Date of decision : 01.03.2023
Lt. Gen. Satinder Kumar Saini son of Ram Gopal Saini, resident of Apt No.PH 01, 13th Floor, F Tower, Exotic Grandeur, NH 22, MC Zirakpur 140603, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
…….Complainant
Versus
Eureka Forbes Limited, SCF 113, 2nd Floor, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab 160062.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Paramjeet Kaur, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
OP ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’ for short) on the ground that, he purchased one Dr Aquaguard RO+UV UTC Geneus Model on 05.07.2021, by paying an amount of Rs.28,790/- to the OP, which was installed at his residence on 07.07.2021. It is alleged that just after 3 days of its installation, the same stopped working and the CC immediately lodged a complaint with the OP bearing No.EFL2130456 on 10.07.2021, with the request to replace the RO as the same was defective. It is averred that the technician sent by the OP resolved the problem and the RO started working. The CC intimated the OP that the new RO should not develop defects within 3 days of its installation and the RO being defective, should be replaced. The CC also exchanged emails with the OP. The CC also called the OP on telephone. The CC also asked the OP to give contact number of the Country Head so that he could tell his grievance to him. The number of the Country Head was not shared by the OP. U The CC also spoke to one Mr. Bhandari Incharge at Chandigarh. The CC was also promised by one Mr. Abhishek Jain, Area Head that in case of further problem, the RO will be replaced. Even the CC spoke to one Jagsir Singh the successor of Abhishek Jain in the Company and he sent the Field Engineer on 15.06.2022, who in his report mentioned that the customer needs to get AMC done and also wanted the RO to be replaced due to previous history of recurring problems. It is further alleged that RO stopped functioning on 19.06.2022. The CC raised request vide No.2026132344 on 19.06.2022 and also sent the photos to Mr. Jagsir Singh, Country Head with the caption “tank empty blue indicator off”. However, nothing was done despite the fact that the warranty was to expire on 09.07.2022.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought compensation for mental agony and harassment. The complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. The OP did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.01.2023.
3. The CC in support of his complaint submitted in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.
4. We, have heard the complainant and have gone through the file.
5. Since, none has appeared on behalf of the OP to rebut the contentions of the CC and the allegations of the complaint, in such a situation, we have no option except to believe the averments of the complaint, which are duly supported by an affidavit of the CC and documents. It is writ large on the file that the CC purchased the RO from the OP and paid an amount of Rs.28,790/-. It is also proved on file that on 07.07.2021 the RO was installed at the residence of the CC and within 3 days of its installation on 10.07.2021 the same stopped working. The CC lodged a complaint No.EFL2130456, requesting the OP to replace the RO. On 12.07.2021 the technician of the OP came and repaired the RO, but after a few days the RO again started leaking and more complaints were also raised. The CC had been requesting the OP time and again to replace the RO, since the same was defective, but every time his request fell on deaf ears. Even the CC requested Mr. Abhishek Jain, Country Head who promised to replace the RO, but nothing was done. Again on 09.06.2022, the RO stopped working. The CC again spoke to Mr. Jain and one Mr. Jagsir Singh, but nothing concrete was done and the problem in the RO remained unsolved.
6. From the perusal of complaint and the documents, it is writ large that defective RO was sold to the CC by the OP. The CC had to undergo mental and physical harassment during this period. It is also proved on file that the RO was having permanent manufacturing defect, but the OP did not replace the RO despite repeated requests of the CC. We feel, that the CC is successful in making out a case of deficiency in service and mal practice on the part of the OP.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint. The OP is directed to refund to the CC the price of the Aquaguard to the tune of Rs.28,790.00 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation. The OP is further burdened to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the CC towards mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. Compliance of this order be made by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of the order. Certified copies of the orders be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record.
Announced
March 01, 2022
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
