BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.151 of 2015

Date of Institution: 12-03-2015

Date of Decision: 09-06-2015

M/s.Pritam Di Hatti through its proprietor Sh.Rajinder Kumar, resident of 356, D-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. EUREKA FORBES LTD., (Corporate Office) through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principal Officer/ Authorized Officer, SCO-B1/B2, 701, Marathon Nextgen, Innova, Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.
2. EUREKA FORBES LTD., (Registered Office), through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principal Officer/ Authorized Officer, No.7, Chakraberia Road, (South), Kolkata-700025.
3. EUREKA FORBES LTD., (Sales Office), through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principal Officer/ Authorized Officer, 250, Basant Avenue, 1^st Floor, IMA Building, Race Course Road, Amritsar-143001.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Ashwani Chawla, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Rajinder Kumar, proprietor of the complainant firm under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he purchased Eureka Forbes purifier having product/ item code No. GWPDENGNR20000, Model AQUAGUARD ENHANCE GREEN RO WP (1225104546001927) from Opposite Party No.3 vide Invoice No.024780/2914100510 dated 3-6/5-2014 alongwith warranty card.  Complainant alleges that since the installation, the said purifier did not work properly and after three months of its installation/ purchase, it stopped working and was out of order.  The complainant made several complaints in this regard, firstly on 28.7.2014 vide complaint No. 0077448827, secondly on 9.8.2014 vide complaint No. 0077648082, thirdly on 11.8.2014 vide complaint No. 0090108794, fourthly on  28.10.2014 vide complaint No. 0078790275 and finally on 29.10.2014 sent through e-mail to the Opposite Parties. On the complaints of the complainant, the technicians of the Opposite Parties came and assured the complainant that said purifier will work properly, but thereafter, the same problem persists and the purifier hardly worked and remained out of order. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to replace the defected product which has got manufacturing defect or refund the money. Ultimately, the complainant served legal notice dated 12.12.2014 and reminder dated 5.2.2015 with request to take up the complaint of the complainant and dispose it urgently, but to no affect.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.14,990/- alongwith interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, so Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2  were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.04.2015. Similarly, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, so Opposite Party No.3 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 9.4.2015  of this Forum.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2, reminder Ex.C3, retail invoice  Ex.C4 and Ex.C4/A, warranty card Ex.C5, copies of e-mails Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of request letter Ex.C8, postal receipts Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 and close the exparte evidence of the complainant.  
4. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.
5. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased Eureka Forbes purifier from Opposite Party No.3 vide Invoice No.024780/2914100510 dated 3-6/5-2014 alongwith warranty card Ex.C4/ Ex.C4/A for Rs.14,990/- which was installed at the premises of the complainant firm. Complainant alleges that since the installation, the said purifier did not work properly and after three months of its installation, it stopped working and became totally out of order. Complainant alleges that complainant made complaints in this regard with the Opposite Parties, firstly on 28.7.2014 vide complaint No. 0077448827, secondly on 9.8.2014 vide complaint No. 0077648082, thirdly on 11.8.2014 vide complaint No. 0090108794, fourthly on  28.10.2014 vide complaint No. 0078790275 and finally on 29.10.2014 sent through e-mail to the Opposite Parties. On the complaints of the complainant, the authorized person/ technician of the Opposite Parties came and checked the purifier and made it functional, but thereafter, the same problem persisted and it  hardly worked and is now totally out of order. The complainant again approached the Opposite Parties  in this regard,  but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant to repair the same or to replace the same with new one or to refund the price of the purifier. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that as the purifier in question is not repairable having manufacturing defect, that is why, the Opposite Parties  could not repair it nor replaced it nor refunded the amount of the product to the complainant.  The complainant also served legal notice on the Opposite Parties  on 12.12.2014 Ex.C2 and reminder dated 5.2.2015 Ex.C3 through registered post, but all in vain.  Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
6. In order to support his case, the complainant alongwith his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, has also produced on record the invoice regarding the purchase of the product/ purifier Ex.C4/ Ex.C4/A, brochure Ex.C5, letters written by the complainant to the Opposite Parties  Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, legal notice dated 12.12.2014 Ex.C2, reminder dated 5.2.2015 Ex.C3, but the Opposite Parties  even did not dare to submit the reply to the legal notice to the complainant.     The evidence produced on record  by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged  as none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to contest the case of the complainant nor any person from the Opposite Parties dared to file an affidavit to rebut the case of the complainant. So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that Eureka Forbes purifier  purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Parties vide   Invoice Ex.C4/ Ex.C4/A for Rs.14,990/-  became defective. The complainant sent so many complaints to the Opposite Parties  and the technician of the Opposite Parties  came to repair the purifier, but it hardly worked properly and ultimately became out of order. Thereafter, no technician/ engineer came from the Opposite Parties  to repair the purifier of the complainant. The complainant even sent legal notice dated 12.12.2014 Ex.C3 and reminder dated 5.2.2015 Ex.C3 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C9 and Ex.C10, but the Opposite Parties  even did not dare to  submit any reply to the legal notice/ reminder issued by the complainant to the Opposite Parties. All these fully prove that the purifier purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Parties  is not repairable. As such, the Opposite Parties  are liable to replace the same or to refund the price of the purifier to the complainant alongwith interest.
7. Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant exparte with costs and the Opposite Parties  are directed to replace the said product/ purifier of the complainant  with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the purifier i.e. Rs. 14,990/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The Opposite Parties  are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. 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.

Dated: 09-06-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member