Delhi

StateCommission

A/677/2017

SAMEEP VIJAYVERGIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

EUREKA FORBES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 18.01.2018

Date of Decision : 22.01.2018

Appeal No. 677/2017

 

(Arising out of the order dated 21.11.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.223/2016  by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-X (Qutub Institutional Area)

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Sameep Vijayvergiya,

S/o Sh. Sunil Kumar Vijayvergiya,

R/o 191, 4^th Floor, Shahpur Jat,

New Delhi-110049.

 

Also at:

 

E-103, Baasement, Greater Kailash Enclave-I,

New Delhi-110048.                                                                          ........Appellant

 

VERSUS

Eureka Forbes,

Having its registered office at:

7, Chakraberia road (South),

Kolkata-700025.

 

Also  at:

 

430, 3^rd Floor, Sant Nagar,

East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110065.                                                             …….…Respondent

 

CORAM

 

SH. O. P. GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Present  :   Appellant in person.

 

 

PER  ;  SHRI  ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (G)

 

 

          Sh. Vijay Sameep Vijayvergiya, resident of Delhi, has preferred an appeal for short ‘appellant’  before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against Eureka Forbes, hereinafter referred to as Respondent/OP, assailingthe order dated 21.11.2017 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, Delhi, holding OP deficient in rendering service to the appellant/complainant and directing them to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for  harassment, agony, physical inconvenience and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation as expenses and praying for the relief from this Commission for the enhancement of the compensation, as indicated below:

1. Refund Rs.400/- alongwith 18% interest from 10.05.2016;

 

2. Refund of Rs.1080/- alongwith 18% interest from 19.06.2016;

 

3. Pay Rs.7260/- as the cost of the new Water Purifier alongwith 18% interest from 20.06.2016;

 

4. Pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the Complainant and his family members;

 

5. Pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of the Litigation.

 

6. Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the Complainants case be also granted.

Facts of the case are these.

          The appellant/complainant entered into an agreement with the Respondent/Opposite Party for the annual maintenance service for the water purifier named “aqua flow” for a period of one year w.e.f.12.12.2015 to 11.12.2016. On 10.05.2016,  the respondent conducted a service on the water purifier and charged Rs.400/- inspite of period of annual maintenance service.  The appellant/complainant took up the matter with the respondent protesting for amount charged.  Besides, despite service of water purifier, it stopped working leading to inconvenience to the appellant.  The respondent did not take suitable steps to cure the defects.

          Consequently the appellant had to manage for the purified water for drinking from the market burdening him with avoidable expenditure.  Sick of the attitude of the respondent, the appellant purchased a new water purifier again burdening him with expenditure.

          Frustrated with the alleged attitude of the respondent a complaint was filed before the District Fora which complaint was allowed but not being satisfied with the compensation awarded this appeal has been filed for the enhancement of the compensation.

          The substantial question in this complaint is whether the compensation awarded to the complainant by the District For a is adequate for the deficiency of service rendered by him.  For this purpose, we may advert to the relief granted to the complainant by the District For a.  The grievances of the complainant was two sided, namely charging of Rs.400/- during the period of AMC which amounts to unfair trade practice and, secondly, not attending of the complaints made to put the purifier functional which act amounts to breach of contract leading to deficiency of service. The District For a finding that respondent deficient in rendering service ordered them to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.  The complainant before this Commission has prayed for, among other, compensation of Rs.30,000/-.

          The compensation claimed, according to us, is certainly on the higher side. 

          “The NCDRC in Surender Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home reported in IV (2010) CPJ 199 has held that compensation has to reasonable and not in anyway to enrich the consumer.”

          Their Lordship in the Supreme Court in the matter of Balram Prasad (Dr.) Advance Medical Care and Research Institute Ltd., Dr. Baidynath Haldar, Dr. Kunal Saha an others and reported in IV (2013) CPJ 1SC it have laid down the principle for just compensation, basing it on restitution integram i.e. claimant must receive sum of the money which would put him in same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong.

          Having regard to the orders/judgement of the Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, referred to above, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Ld. District For impugned in this appeal. No case has been made out for our interference.  We upheld the orders passed.

          Ordered accordingly.

          A copy of the order be forwarded to both the parties free of cost as statutorily required.  A copy of the order be sent to the District Fora also for information.

          File be consigned to Record  Room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                 

    MEMBER                                         MEMBER (JUDICIAL)                                         

                               ​