BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.272 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 12.08.2021

      Date of Decision: 29.03.2023

Sushma Sud aged 72 years D/o Durga Datt Sud resident of 665, GTB Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Eureka Forbes Limited, Red Cross Bhawan, Mall Road,          Ludhiana-141027 through its Managing Director/Director Incharge.

2.       Eureka Forbes Limited (Customer Care Centre/Service Provider)       C/o Hotel Gagandeep, Near Bus Stand, GT Road, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Naval Sehgal, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased water filter, name of the product is Dr. Aquaguard Magna HD UV. The annual service Maintenance contract was purchased for the period of two years for Rs.3,650/- from the OP vide contract receipt number- 8260058292. The complainant parted/paid the amount vide cheque number- 074774 dated 12.10.2019 drawn on Bank of India and the service contract amount for the above product was paid and was valid from 12.10.2019 to 11.10.2021. The terms and conditions are duly mentioned in the contract receipt. The OP charged Rs.3650/- for free service contract which was paid by the complainant vide cheque number 074774, the service contract was valid w.e.f. 12.10.2019 to 11.10.2021 as mentioned in the service contract. On behalf of the Consumer Service Division of OP, the contract receipt is duly signed by Tajinder Singh and the complainant being consumer signed the contract receipt. So, meaning thereby, the parties to the complaint are bound by the terms and conditions and the contract executed between them. Instead of providing the services the opposite party left the office without notice as reported on the legal notice. The service contract provided the following conditions applicable:-

          a. Two periodical services would be provided for all      domestic products except RO water purifier. Three periodical          services would be provided. Eureka Forbes Limited has the right   to combine mandatory service along with breakdown service.

          b. One set of consumable would be replaced for all the products.       For compact model water purifier one more additional set of      consumable will be provided.

                   The cheque issued by the complainant is duly encashed and reflected in the bank statement of accounts of the complainant. After the receipt of the amount the OP was duty bound to provide the services from time to time as per the requirement that too the satisfaction of the complainant i.e. free of cost to the product given to the complainant. But there is lack of service on the part of the opposite party to provide the services to the product supplied to the complainant. The officials of the OP were careless, negligent in performing the duties while providing the service for which they agreed. The product given to the complainant was defective, not working properly, foul smell was coming, filters were blocked, not cleaned by the opposite party from time to time, when reported the matter Tajinder Singh who signed the contract informed the complainant that he has left the services of the opposite party. There was contract to provide the service, check the filters, change the filters free of cost but the opposite party never bothered to abide the norms and terms of the contract. The filters were required to be changed free of cost as the opposite party took the money for providing the service to the complainant. The water filter is installed at the residence/ premises of the complainant for her domestic use, but the officials of the OP never visited for the required services of the water filter from time to time and have charged the amount from the complainant for the service of the water filter under threat and coercion by deceitful means. The product supplied by the OP requires service as per the agreement as the foul smell started coming from the product, this was pointed out, but the OP did not care rather after long time sent one of the service man, he pointed out the filters are to be changed, he changed the filters demanded the amount, the demand raised by the official of the OP is wholly illegal, uncalled for, against the service contract. The complainant disregard to the said service/ agreement, the person of the OP raised a bill of Rs.2,425/-, demanded the said amount from the complainant which is clear cut violation of service contract. The service man who came for the service told the complainant that he has clear instructions not to honour any such contract. He even threatened the complainant that in case if the payment is not made, the service man shall remove the parts from the filter. The above act and conduct of the official of the company is complete violation of the service contract. There was no point of raising the bill of Rs.2,425/-. The demand raised is wholly illegal, uncalled for against the contract signed by the parties. The complainant has no other option but to pay Rs.2,425/- vide cheque number 103382. Under the protest the cheque was given and cleared on 27.05.2021. There was no point for getting the signatures on the contract and giving the assurance for the maintenance free of cost and after that raising the bill and demanding the money is clear cut violation of the contract. The complainant got issued two legal notices for the act and conduct of the OP. Reference is made to the legal notice dated 07.06.2021. The final legal notice was given on dated 05.07.2021 which was sent through registered post by Sh. Harpreet Singh, Adv. to the OP, but the same was returned with the remarks Left and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return a sum of Rs.2425/- to the complainant i.e. illegally charged. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as legal charges and Rs.55,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complainant was given to the OPs and as per report notice sent to OP No.2 received back with the report ‘refused by employee of OP No.2’ and ultimately OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte. MR. Deepka Srivastva, Group Customer Service Specialist appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 only one time and after that none has appeared on behalf of OP No.1 since last so many dates despite cost and ultimately, OP No1 also proceeded against exparte.

3.                In order to prove his respective version, the counsel for the complainant produced his evidence alongwith documents.

4.                We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

5.                The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased water filter namely Dr. Aquaguard Magna HD UV and the annual service maintenance contract was purchased for the period of two years i.e. 12.10.2019 to 11.10.2021, for Rs.3650/- from the OP vide receipt no.8260058292, which is evident from Ex.C-1. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.3650/- vide cheque no.074774 dated 12.10.2019. The terms and conditions are duly mentioned in the contract receipt. The service contract provided the following conditions applicable:-

          a. Two periodical services would be provided for all      domestic products except RO water purifier. Three periodical          services would be provided. Eureka Forbes Limited has the right   to combine mandatory service along with breakdown service.

          b. One set of consumable would be replaced for all the products.       For compact model water purifier one more additional set of      consumable will be provided.

                   But the officials of the OP were careless, negligent in performing the duties while providing the service for which they agreed and the product given to the complainant was defective, not working properly, foul smell was coming, filters were blocked, not cleaned by the OP from time to time and all the complaint were reported, but the OP never bothered to solve the same and after long time, the OP sent one of the service man, who changed the filters and demanded money, which is against the terms and conditions of the service contract. The service man threatened the complainant that in case if the payment is not made, he shall remove the parts from the filter and then the complainant paid Rs.2425/-, vide cheque no.103382, which is evident from Ex.C-2. The complainant also sent legal notices Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. Legal notice was given on 07.06.2021 Ex.C-3 and final legal notice was given on 05.07.2021 Ex.C-4 which was sent through registered post, which was returned back as remarks ‘Left’. Envelope is Ex.C-5, postal receipt as Ex.C-6. Again legal notice was given on 28.07.2021 Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11, but all in vain. OP also replied to complainant through WhatsApp dated 07 June, 2021 Ex.C-7 in which OP has regretted for inconvenience and even registered his complaint bearing no.0113688647 address to AMC Sales Related Complain, but nothing was done to solve the complainant’s grievance.  Request has been made to allow the complaint.

6.                On the other hand, the OPs have not come to contest the case. So, the version of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un- challenged, even then the same is required to glance very deeply. The allegation of the complainant is supported by his own affidavit Ex.CA and supported documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14.

7.                In view of the above detailed discussion, it is clear that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief. The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are jointly and severally directed to return Rs.2425/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

29.03.2023         Member                          Member           President