BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 306 of 2015

Date of Institution:        14.5.2015

Date of Decision:           8.12.2015

Deepak Dogra ,H.No. 79, Tilak Nagar, Amritsar 143001 Mobile 9417062828

Complainant

Versus

1. Eureka Forbes Ltd. (B1/B2, 701, 7^th Floor, Marathon Next Gen.Marathon Innova, Off.Ganpat Rao Marg, Mumbai, PIN 400013
2. M/s. Kasturi Mega Ventures Pvt.Ltd., Franchisee of Star CJ Network India Pvt.Ltd. Vill.Sampka, Jamalpur, Pataudi Road, The. Pataudi,  Gurgaon, Haryana PIN 123503
3. Mr. Suresh Bhagat, Local Service Head, Eureka Forbes Ltd. (250, Basant Avenue,Race Court Road, Amritsar)

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  In person

               For the Opposite Parties    :   Ex-parte

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Deepak Dogra under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he purchased Aquaguard Pride (Water Filter) of Eureka Forbes Ltd through TV Channel named Star CJ Alive with invoice No. 201401080425 dated 8.1.2014  for a sum of Rs. 5490/-. According to the complainant on 20.1.2014, Technician Ranjit Singh came to the house of the complainant and installed the product. Complainant has alleged that on the very next day of installation, the water found leaking from the product.  Complainant reported the matter  to the authorized service centre of Eureka Forbes  i.e. opposite party No.3. On 27.1.2014 opposite party No.3 Mr. Suresh Bhagat  came to the house of the complainant and took the product with him to the service centre and returned the same after resolving the problem. But unfortunately the same problem occurred again on the very next day. The complainant again lodged complaint dated 1.2.2014. Then company Technician Ranjit Singh came to their house and checked the fault. He repaired the product and told that leakage problem would not persist in future. However, after a few hours there was leakage found in the product. The complainant again informed opposite party No.3, but the opposite party failed to rectify the problem in the product. Thereafter complainant approached the Eureka Head Office at Delhi and Mumbai so many times on telephone and he get assurance that the problem will be resolved at the earliest. Thereafter the complainant received telephone message  that the part of the product which requires change is not available and as soon as the spare part is available, the problem will be resolved  . On 7.11.2014 company Technician Gurpreet Singh came to the house of the complainant and took the product with him and gave his mobile No. 9780986774 for further enquiry in future. Complainant has further alleged that he lodged so many complaints with the opposite parties  to the customer ID on 6.12.2014, 9.12.2014, 17.12.2014, 19.12.2014 etc. The complainant also personally met opposite party No.3, who also expressed his inability to solve the problem of the product of the complainant. Rather opposite party No.3 stated that the complainant should take back his product as it is . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to either replace the product with new one or to  refund the full cost of the product alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 5000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Initially opposite parties  No.1 & 3 did not appear despite service as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 3.7.2015 but later on Sh. Suresh Bhagat, Service head of opposite party No.1 and requested to join the proceedings at that stage  and the same was allowed and opposite party No.1 was permitted to join the proceedings at that stage. But thereafter none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1, as such  it was again proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 8.10.2015.
3. In ex-parte evidence complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of retail invoice dated 8.1.2014 Ex.C-2.
4. We have carefully gone through the averments of the complainant, arguments advanced by the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the complainant.
5. From the record i.e. averments of the complainant and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Aquaguard Pride (Water Filter) of Eureka Forbes Ltd through TV Channel named Star CJ Alive with invoice  dated 8.1.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 5490/-. Technician Ranjit Singh came to the house of the complainant on 20.1.2014 and installed the product. The complainant alleges that on the very next day of installation, he  found that water was leaking from the product. The matter was reported to the authorized service centre of Eureka Forbes  i.e. opposite party No.3. On 27.1.2014 opposite party No.3 Mr. Suresh Bhagat  came to the house of the complainant and took the product with him to the service centre and returned the same after resolving the problem. But unfortunately the same problem occurred again on the very next day. The complainant again lodged complaint dated 1.2.2014. Then company technician Ranjit Singh came to their house and checked the fault. He repaired the product and told that leakage problem would not persist in future. However, after a few hours, there was water leakage found in the product. The complainant again informed opposite party No.3, but the opposite party failed to rectify the problem in the product. Thereafter complainant approached the Eureka Head Office at Delhi and Mumbai so many times on telephone and he got assurance that the problem will be resolved at the earliest. Thereafter the complainant received telephone message  that the part of the product which requires change, is not available and as soon as the spare part is available, the problem will be resolved  . On 7.11.2014 company Technician Gurpreet Singh came to the house of the complainant and took the product with him and gave his mobile No. 9780986774 for further enquiry in future. But thereafter neither problem of the product was rectified nor the same was returned to the complainant despite the fact that the complainant lodged so many complaints with the opposite parties on the customer ID on 6.12.2014, 9.12.2014, 17.12.2014, 19.12.2014 etc. The complainant also personally met opposite party No.3, who also expressed his inability to solve the problem of the product of the complainant. Rather opposite party No.3 stated that the complainant should take back his product as it is . The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
6. The complainant proved his averments in the complaint through his affidavit Ex.C-1. He also produced on record retail invoice Ex.C-2.
7. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the complainant despite service  to contest the complaint filed by the complainant nor any person from the opposite parties dared to file affidavit to rebut the case and the evidence produced on record by the complainant.
8. So from the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the Aquaguard purchased by the complainant vide invoice dated 8.1.2014 Ex.C-2 installed by the company technician Ranjit Singh at the house of the complainant on 20.1.2014 became defective as it was suffering from leakage problem and the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties despite so many efforts. All this fully proves that the  Aquaguard of the complainant is not repairable , as such the same requires replacement.

9.       Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties are directed to replace the Aquaguard of Eureka Forbes with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the product to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

8.12.2015                                                             ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member