Date of Filing: 16.06.2008<br /> Date of Order:30.09.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1324 OF 2008<br /> B.K. Sinha<br /> S/o. Late R.K.P. Sinha<br /> R/at B-16, Kudremukh Colony<br /> 2nd Block Koramangala<br /> Bangalore 560 034 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 1. Eurekha Forbes Ltd.<br /> Having its registered office at<br /> No. 7, Chakraberla Road (South)<br /> Kolkata 700 025<br /> Represented by its Managing Director<br /> <br /> 2. Eureka Forbes Service Head Quarters<br /> No. 143, C-4, Bommasandra Industrial Area<br /> Off. Hosur Road<br /> Bangalore 560 099<br /> Represented by its General Manager Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act for grant of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of new Water Purifier. <br /> 2. The facts of the case are that complainant had installed water purifier in his house. The last AMC was entered into with the JRD services under contract receipt No. 11769626 effective from 25.04.2005 for a period of 2 years. The filter and carbon blocks in the water purifier were changed on 20.04.2005 and as per terms of AMC they were due to charge again after one year. However, no such replacement was made in April 2006. On 14.08.2006 the water purifier stopped functioning and a complaint under No. 303 was lodged with J.R.D. Services the agent of opposite parties for service of water purifier. Since nobody came to attend, another complaint was lodged with the help line of First opposite party on the 20th of August 2006 under No. 85203. Subsequently, a representative came and after checkup informed that the PCB needed to be replaced. He promised to come back the next day with the PCB but did not turn up. On enquiry with J.R.D. Services as well as their office in Kormangala the complainant was being continuously informed that PCB was out of stock. The complainant requested for a service unit to be provided, and he was told that the company had no such policy. The complainant submitted that on 26.01.2008 he got Kent water purifier installed by paying an amount of Rs. 5,990/-. Opposite party failed to carryout repairs to the water purifier as per the agreed terms of AMC. Therefore, complainant sought compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and also Rs. 50,000/- as damages.<br /> 3. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party has put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that the last service carried out was on 02.04.2007 and on that date the complainant failed to show any interest and accordingly, engineer of the opposite party made an endorsement that complainant is not interested in getting the water purifier serviced. Complainant is mis-used the forum by filing false complaint. Hence, complaint should be dismissed with exemplary costs.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard. Perused the documents.<br /> 5. The opposite party has produced service card. As per this service card the Service Engineer has made note in the said card that complainant is not interested in getting service to the water purifier. The complainant entered into Annual Maintenance Contact from 2003 to 2005 for a period of 3 years. Again the complainant entered into contract for service of water purifier for a period from 2005 – 2007. The complainant had exchanged his Aqua Guard Unit with Kent Water Purifier on 26.01.2008. As per the service card the opposite party carried out service to water purifier from time to time and all the entries have been made in the service card. On 02.04.2008 Service Engineer had entered in the service card “not interested”. So when this is the position the question of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party does not arise. The complainant had exchanged the Aqua Guard Unit with Kent water purifier in the month of January 2008 and on 16.06.2008 he filed complaint. It is absolutely impossible and difficult to hold that the water purifier supplied by the opposite party was not working properly. Complaint has been filed after 6 months of exchange. The water purifier supplied by the opposite party is not available with the complainant for service or / to examine its working. So under these circumstances there is absolutely no evidence or proof to establish that the water purifier supplied by the opposite party was not in good condition. The contract entered into with the opposite party shall not cover improper or negligent use of instrument and damage caused to the equipment due to failure to observe the operating instructions and precautions as mentioned in the users’ manual. There is absolutely no proof or evidence to show that the complainant has followed properly the users’ manual. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and same is dismissed.<br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />