DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 224/2018
D.No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
PALLAVI SINHA W/o SH. A.K. SINHA,
R/o H. No. E-7/268-71, SULTAN PURI,
DELHI-110086. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
EUREKA FORBES LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS MANAGER),
201-206, NEELKANTH PLAZA,
COMMUNITY CENTRE, PITAM PURA,
NEW DELHI-110034. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 20.03.2018
Date of decision:23.08.2018
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
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 Aquaguard Enhance UV WP system of Rs.15,250/- on 13.10.2014 from OP under scheme bearing Customer ID 1011532476 and the complainant paid
CC No. 224/2018 Page 1 of 5
Rs.1,500/- as down-payment on 13.10.2014 and balance payment was to be paid in 11 equal installments of Rs.1,250/- each i.e. Rs.13,750/- + Rs.1,500/- thereby totaling amount of Rs.15,250/-. The complainant further alleged that the complainant paid Rs.16,750/- instead of Rs.15,250/- i.e. extra amount Rs.1,500/- to OP (paid in advance the ECS-amount on 28.12.2016) and the complainant approached OP several times to issue NOC but there is no proper response given by OP in the matter. Thereafter, inspite of issuing NOC, OP is still forwarding ECS in the complainant’s bank-account and charging wrong amount/debiting charges in the complainant’s bank-account (inspite of the fact, that the complainant cleared the dues on 28.12.2016) and as such there is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to release/issue NOC for no-dues to the complainant as well as compensation of Rs.80,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and damages and has also sought Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Notices to OP was issued through speed post for appearance on 01.05.2018 & 03.07.2018 14.08.2017. But none for the OP appeared on 01.05.2018, 01.06.2018, 03.07.2018 & 23.07.2018 despite service of notices on 05.04.2018 & 26.06.2018 as per track
CC No. 224/2018 Page 2 of 5
reports and as such OP has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.07.2018.
4. In order to prove her case the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has placed on record copy of final receipt no. 43844/109 dated 13.10.2014 of Rs.15,250/- for purchase of Aquaguard issued by OP showing that the complainant paid down payment of Rs.1,500/-, copies of field collection receipts no. R1/2016-17/3029 dated 02.05.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,500/- & receipt no. R1/2016-17/14445 dated 28.12.2016 for a sum of Rs.8,750/- i.e. payment given by the complainant through cheque bearing no. 9058708 dated 28.12.2016 for a sum of Rs.8,750/- to OP which was cleared on 02.01.2017 in the account of the complainant, copies of bank statement of account showing that an amount of Rs.3,750/- & Rs.1,250/- have been debited in the account of the complainant through ECS payment to OP on 01.12.2016 & 29.12.2016 respectively as shown in passbook and copy of detail of payment to OP. Copy of bank statement of account of the complainant shows that an amount of Rs.115/- has been debited on02.01.2017&19.01.2017 despite the fact that full payment has already been received by OP. The documents of the complainant shows that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.16,980/- to OP for the
CC No. 224/2018 Page 3 of 5
purchase of Aquaguard instead of 15,250/- and thus the complainant has made excess payment of Rs.1,730/- to OP.
5. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears that even after receiving notices of this case from this forum, OP has kept mum and has not bothered to answer the case of the complainant. It seems that OP has no defence in their favour.
6. As OP has failed to appear and has not lead any evidence and as such it seems that OP has no genuine defence. Accordingly, OP is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
7. Accordingly, OP is directed as under: -
i) To release the NOC for no-dues to the complainant.
ii) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,730/- for extra payment charged by OP from the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
iv) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- which includes cost of litigation.
CC No. 224/2018 Page 4 of 5
8. The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the dateof payment. If OP fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. 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 23rdday of August, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 224/2018 Page 5 of 5