DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 545/2013
Smt. Anjana Gupta
W/o Sh. Naresh Gupta
R/o 126, Ground Floor,
Humayunpur, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi – 29 ….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd.
252A, Sant Nagar, 2nd Floor,
Above Reliance Fresh,
New Delhi – 62.
Also at: B1/B2, 701, 7th Floor, Marathon Nextgen
Marathon Innova, Off Ganptrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013
Regd. Office at: 7, Chakraberia Road,
Kolkata – 700025 (West Bengal)
2. M/s Aastha Aqua Appliances
Unit of Franchise Business Partner
Eureka Forbes Ltd.,
10, Rajaram, DDA Market,
Madangir, New Delhi – 62 .…Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 13.11.2013 Date of Order : 05.08.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that on the recommendation from OP-2 who is a franchise of OP-1, she purchased an Aqua-guard water purifier model “Euro RO + UV” manufactured by OP-1 for Rs. 17,990/- vide invoice No. 11194 dated 11.3.2013 because it was impressed by the company’s executive upon the complainant that the TDS level of the tap water was about 400 mg/lit which was harmful for health as it should be between 50-60 mg/lit. The said unit was installed by the technician of the company on 11.3.2013 after checking the TDS level which was 400 mg/lit approx. and told the complainant to use the water from the unit only after the TDS level reduced to 50-60 mg/lit. However, according to the complainant, she noticed that the TDS level reduced to less than 10 mg/lit and it was further reducing. Thus, the complainant made a call in this behalf and she was assured and was asked to wait for few days as it happens with new units. Thereafter, she was informed that the ‘membrane’ of the unit needed to be changed though not a single drop of water was being used from it. The complainant has given a detailed description/correspondences that took place between her and various officers at different levels of the OPs with regard to the replacement of the unit which was admitted to be a defective unit on behalf of the OPs but nothing happened. The OPs were lastly served with a legal notice dated 13.7.2013 but to no effect. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, complainant has prayed for issuing following directions to the OPs:
“(a) the OPs, jointly or severally, to refund the entire amount of the unit i.e. Rs. 17,990/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Only) purchased by the complainant with interest of 18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of purchase till the date of realization of refund to the complainant;
- the opposite parties, jointly or severally, to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for mental agony and harassment caused by them and for suffering sub-standard goods and deficient services of the company;
- the opposite parties, jointly or severally, to make payment of litigation expenses for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) incurred by the complainant for prosecuting the present complaint under compelling conditions.”
From perusal of the order-sheets, it transpires that the appearance was put on behalf of both the OPs. The matter was even referred to the Mediation Centre. The OPs did not file any reply/written statement of the complaint and they were ultimately proceeded exparte vide order dated 1.9.2014 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. She has filed the copies of the documents as Ex. CW1/A (colly) to CW1/J.
We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record very carefully.
OPs have not filed any reply/written statement to controvert the averments made in the complaint. The authenticity of the documents filed on behalf of the complainant can not be disputed in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. We have reason to believe that the OPs in fact delivered a defective Aqua-guard unit to the complainant and by doing this, OPs committed deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we hold OPs guilty of deficiency in service. We allow the complaint and direct the OPs, jointly and severely, to pay Rs. 17,990/- to the complainant towards the purchase amount of the unit in question, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs shall, jointly and severely, become liable to pay Rs. 17,990/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 05.08.2016
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 545/13
05.08.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OPs are directed, jointly and severely, to pay Rs. 17,990/- to the complainant towards the purchase amount of the unit in question, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs shall, jointly and severely, become liable to pay Rs. 17,990/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
