DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 581/2018
D. No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
BISWESWAR DEY,
S/o LATE SH. JALENDER DEY,
R/o 1039, PKT-GH-I, SEC.-28,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
EUREKA FORBES LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS MANAGER),
201-206, NEELKANTH PLAZA,
COMMUNITY CENTRE, PITAM PURA,
NEW DELHI-110034.
ALSO AT: D-9, DSIDC COMPLEX,
KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110015. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 16.08.2018
Date of decision: 01.05.2019
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased RO-Water purification system “AG-Enhance” of OP on 01.07.2014 of Rs.14,000/- and the complainant paid the amount in EMI’s and OP delivered/installed the said RO-system in the premises of the complainant on
CC No. 581/2018 Page 1 of 4
07.07.2014. After about 2 months of purchase, the said RO-system stopped working and in this regard, the complainant made many complaints to OP and the said RO-system was repaired by OP several times but not permanently and OP charged amount from the complainant vide receipts for repair/service of the said RO-system. Thereafter, lastly the complainant got repaired the said RO-system from out-source i.e. S.K. Enterprises, 339, Main Haiderpur Road, Shalimar Village, Delhi and paid Rs.6,000/- for it and OP is guilty for negligence and deficiency in service and hence OP is liable to compensate the complainant for mental agony and harassment.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for directions to OP to refund the amount of the said RO-system i.e. Rs.14,000/- and Rs.10,000/- spended on its repair (total amount Rs.24,000/-) as well as compensation of Rs.60,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and damages and has also sought Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Notice to OP was issued through speed post for appearance on 01.11.2018 & 10.12.2018. But none for the OP appeared on 01.11.2018, 10.12.2018 & 26.02.2019 despite service of notice on 08.11.2018 as per track report and as such OP has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.02.2019.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has
CC No. 581/2018 Page 2 of 4
placed on record copy of acknowledgment for documents vide application no.21496 issued by OP, copy of delivery challan dated 05.07.2014 issued by OP, copy of service request activity report dated 17.05.2015 of Rs.375/-, copies of Tax Invoice-Cum-Receipts dated 18.08.2015 of Rs.375/- & dated 10.05.2016 of Rs.1,150/-all issued by OP and copy of invoice no.746 dated 21.08.2016 of Rs.6,000/- issued by S.K. Enterprises towards AMC.
5. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. Though OP is not contesting the present case but the complainant is required to prove the case on merits. In para-4 of the complaint the complainant stated that after about 2 months of purchase, the said RO system stopped working and in para-5, the complainant stated that many complaints were made to OP and the said RO System was repaired by OP several times but not permanently. In this regard, it is observed that the complainant has not placed on record any document to prove this averment. Moreover, the complainant has not specifically stated about the defect/problem in the RO System. The complainant has also failed to place on record any guarantee letter or about any offer from OP about repair/ maintenance of the RO System. The complainant has also failed to place on record any document to show that OP has offered to maintain the RO System free of charges. Moreover, the documents
CC No. 581/2018 Page 3 of 4
Ex-C-1 & C-2 which are receipts dated 17.05.2015 & 18.08.2015 of Rs.375/- each are for change of candle. Similarly, the other receipt dated 10.05.2016 of Rs.1,150/- is for change of candle, sediment and chemi-pre-carbon. Furthermore, the receipt dated 21.08.2016 of Rs.6,000/- issued by S.K. Enterprises pertains to AMC. In none of these documents specific defect/problem in RO System is mentioned. So, it cannot be said that there is some inherent or manufacturing defect in the RO System. Thus, this Forum is of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case on merits. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 1st day of May, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 581/2018 Page 4 of 4
UPLOADED BY :- SATYENDRA JEET
