Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/605/2017

Kulwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

26 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	605 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	10.08.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	26.02.2018

 

 

 

 

Kulwant Singh, R/o House No.36-A, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Eureka Forbes Ltd., Chandigarh, SCO No.14, First Floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh through its Authorised Signatory.

2]  Eureka Forbes Ltd., Corporate Office B1/B2, 701, 7^th Floor, Marathon Innova Marathon NextGen, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 through its Managing Director.

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

                               

 

 

For complainant(s)      : Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Ravinder Singh, Authorised Agent of    

  Opposite Parties  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant had purchased one Aqua-guard Magna HD RO+UV water purifier from Opposite Parties on 11.8.2016 for an amount of Rs.17,490/- (Ann.C-1 & C-2) having warranty of 12 months from the date of installation and 15 months from the date of sale, whichever is earlier (Ann.C-3 & C-4). It is averred that the said water purifier started giving problem after 4/5 months of purchase regarding low water pressure from outlet, slow filling of storage tank, poor quality of material used for tap, which was reported to Opposite Parties whereupon the technician used to come and clear the choked filters with screw driver. It is also averred that when the complainant raised the issue with the technician of the OPs, he told that an outer filter candle be got fixed to solve the problem, whereas the inner candle was not replaced even on one occasion and the same has been damaged due to cleaning by screw driver.  However, the mechanic/technician of the OPs issued a receipt mentioning that the filter is not covered under warranty (Ann.C-5).  It is submitted that the complainant gave request to Opposite Parties for replacement of the filter under warranty but nothing was done and the problem of low pressure, slow storage and tap quality still exists (Ann.C-6 & C-7).  Alleging the said act of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the machine is in perfect working order and the complaints were attended to.  It is stated that the filter and cartridges etc. are subject to normal wear and tear and are not covered under warranty.  It is also stated that since the complainant refused to pay for the filters, they were not replaced and just cleaned and choked pores were unblocked by cleaning.  It is submitted that the machine is purifying the water, but due to slight choking of filters due to constant usage, the flow of purified water slows down.  It is also submitted that the complainant has been provided in-warranty free services on 21.2.2017, 25.4.2017 and 14.7.2017 and his machine was found to be working perfectly and purifying the water.  Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, representative of OPs and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       The reply filed by the OPs reveals that the water purifier purchased by the complainant on 11.8.2016 is not functioning trouble-free and their submissions qua attending the complaints of the complainant, corroborates the persistence of the defect in the water purifier as alleged by the complainant.  It is well admitted on record that for smooth functioning of the water purifier in question, there is requirement of changing of filters, which are chocked as per the report of the Service Engineer/Technician of OPs.  It is also admitted by the OPs that due to slight choking of filter the flow of purified water slow down. Despite admitting the defect in the water purifier in question, the Opposite Parties denied their liability to rectify the defect claiming it to be out of the purview of warranty.  This denial of the OPs is a clear cut case of deficiency in service as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice. Instead of honouring the warranty of trouble-free functioning of the water purifier in question, the OPs showed their reluctance to do the needful; this reluctance on their part draws an adverse inference that OPs are not fair in their dealings which resulted in forced litigation.

 

6]       Keeping in view the above findings, the complaint is allowed against the OPs with direction to, jointly & severally, refund Rs.17,490/- to the complainant, being the invoice price of the water purifier, and also to pay composite amount of Rs.8000/- towards compensation and litigation cost to the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- apart from above relief.

         However, the OPs may collect the old water purifier from the residence of complainant, only after making complete payment of the above awarded amount, against proper receipt. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

26^th February, 2018                                                                                                                                                      Sd/-  

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER