Haryana

Panchkula

CC/159/2020

SHEELA AHUJA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

EUREKA FORBES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	159 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	18.06.2020
Date of Decision	:	23.02.2022

 

Sheela Ahuja W/o Sh. M.L.Ahuja, House No.1135, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                ….Complainant. 

Versus

1.     Eureka Forbes Ltd. SCO No.195, 1^st Floor, Sector-16, Panchkula.

2.     Eureka Forbes Ltd., SCO No.14, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Sector-7-C,       Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:           Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        OP No.1 already given up vide order dated 21.8.2020.

                        Sh.Pawan Kumar, Authorised Representative of OP   No.2.

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a new water purifier of Eureka Forbes make from OP No.1 of Rs.10,690/- inclusive of all taxes vide invoice no.122120004543 dated 21.01.2019. The New water purifier went out of order after 5½ months of purchase inspite of one year warranty and he complaint to the company. On 04.07.2019, the mechanic of the company checked the system and asked him to pay Rs.1900/- to change a part of this Water System. The complainant, having no option, to except to pay Rs.1,900/-to him, for that part. Further, stated that prior to purchase of this Water purifier, she was having old water purifier of the same company in the name of my husband and AMC of old system was also transferred to this new system upto 21.06.2020. This was given in writing by the representative of the firm. Thus, her new water purifier system was under extended AMC upto 21.06.2020. On 08.06.2020 Water Purifier again went out of order and was not working at all. The complainant tried many times to contact the representative of the company as well as op No.2 but none of them picked her phone. Therefore, the complainant visited the office of OP No.1 but it was found locked. After that on 10.06.2020, she went to OP No.2 and submitted her complaint in writing. In response to the complaint, Sh. Mukesh, mechanic came and checked the water purifier system and asked that Rs.1800/- will cost to replace of part which is to be paid by the customer. This fact he give in writing. She told him that this system is still under AMC so there should be no charges but he flatly refused to change the part free of cost and went away. Due to the acts and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OP No. 2 appeared through authorized representative of OP No.2 and filed written statement raising objections such as complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. On merits, it is stated that the company has never extended any sought of warranty claimed by the complainant. It is submitted that the new unit was bought by customer/sold by salesman through web sale. No buy back sale took place. Thus, AMC in that sort of case is not extended/ transferred with the new product. For new product the said customer is entitled to get only warranty coverage for 1 year. No extension of pending AMC/warranty will be applied. No buy back option is applicable in the said matter. The consumables/filter set are not cover under warranty and the same is clearly mentioned in the product user manual which was handed over to the complainant at the time of sale. Now the complainant is not entitled  to get any further filter kit at free of cost under alleged extension of AMC/warranty period as for the schedule period 23.08.2018 to 22.08.2019, the complainant has already availed one set of free consumable with his old machine. Extension of AMC for 5 months which has been mentioned by the complainant and in support of which he annexed a handwritten note of technician has not been updated or registered in the system of the company/company record. The due process of confirmation of such extension was not followed. No official acknowledgment/confirmation letter or credible communication has been issued from company end which confirms such extension. It is further submitted there is no policy of the company to give extension of 5 months as warranty. So, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             To prove its case, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and Annexure 3(i) in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the authorized representative of OP No.2 tendered affidavit R-A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has submitted the receipt dated 01.10.2020 as Mark A, which is taken on record as Mark A for the proper adjudication of the case.

4.             We have heard the complainant and the authorized representative of the OP No.2 and gone through the record including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             It is not in dispute that the water purifier Eureka Forbes vide invoice (Annexure C-1) amounting to Rs.10,690/- was sold by OPs to complainant. Further, the charging of amount of Rs.1,900/- vide receipt dated 04.07.2019(Annexure C-2) by the technical person of the OP No.2 on account of replacement of certain parts of said water purifier is also not disputed. The complainant has alleged the deficiencies on the part of the OP No.2 on the following counts:-

i.      That the complainant has wrongly been charged the amount of Rs.1900/- vide receipt (Annexure C-2) on 04.07.2019 during the     warranty period of the water purifier.

ii.      That the demand of Rs.1800/-raised by the technical person,     namely, Sh.Mukesh as deputed by OP No.2 on 10.06.2020, in lieu of replacement of the certain parts of water purifier, is wrong and   unjustified.  

                With regard to the first grievance, the OP No.2 has justified the charging of Rs.1,900/- on the ground that the consumable parts are replaced during the warranty period on the payment basis. It is contended that non consumable parts, during the warranty period, are replaced free of cost and thus, the charging of Rs.1900/- during the warranty period on account of replacement of the consumable parts was valid and justified.

                We do not agree with the aforesaid contentions of the OP No.2 as there is nothing on record which shows as to which parts are consumable and which parts are non-consumable. Further, no such condition is mentioned in the tax invoice (Annexure C-1). Further, when the authorized person was asked by us with regard to the total amounts of the consumable parts as well as non consumable parts of water purifier in question, it is stated that the consumable parts of the water purifier are approximately to the tune of Rs.5,500/-. The total cost of water purifier in question is Rs.10,690/-, out of which Rs.5,500/- as mentioned above, is towards the cost of consumable parts, the replacement of which allegedly as per OP No.2 is chargeable. In our considered opinion, the warranty given by the OP No.2 qua the water purifier is same and misleading and thus, we hold that the charging of Rs.1,900/- by the OP No.2 during the warranty period of water purifier was neither valid nor justified. 

                Now, coming to the second grievance pertaining to the demand of Rs.1,800/- as raised by the OP No.2, it is found that the AMC i.e Annual Maintenance  contract qua water purifier purchased earlier in the name of husband of the complainant(Annexure 3(i)) was valid w.e.f. 23.08.2017 to 23.08.2019  whereas  the water purifier in question was purchased by the complainant on 22.01.2019 and thus, a period of  approximately 7 months was balance qua the old water purifier towards its maintenance, which was transferred towards the maintenance of the water purifier in question for a period of 5 months as per (Annexure C-3). The OP No.2 has denied its liability towards the extended warranty stating that the water purifier in question was sold through web sale and in case of sale of new product, no extension of balance period of AMC is given. It is submitted that there was no buy back option in the present case. It is contended that there is no policy of the company to extend the period of warranty. Regarding the extension given by the OP No.1 vide Annexure C-3 in the warranty up to 21.06.2020, it is stated that the same has not been got updated or registered in the system of the company.

                The aforementioned contentions of the OP No.2, denying its liability towards the extension of the warranty as per Annexure C-3, are totally baseless and meritless. A perusal of Annexure C-3 reveals that the representative of OP No.1 has clearly extended the warranty period by putting his signature and seal of OP No.1 over it and thus, there was no occasion for the complainant to doubt the legality and validity of the same. In our considered opinion, the OP No.2 cannot be permitted to run away from its liability, when as per Annexure C-3 warranty was clearly extended by the representative of OP No.1.

6.             In the light of above discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.2 while delivering services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.

7.             Coming to relief, it is found that the complainant, as per mark ‘A’, has purchased an another water purifier on 01.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.15,000/-. In this regard no lapse can be attributed on the part of the complainant as she had purchased an another water purifier after a period of about 110 days. Needless to mention that water purifier is not a luxury item; rather it has now become a necessity to have a water purifier in order to have a good quality of drinking water.

8.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP No.2:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.10,690/-i.e. price of water   purifier purchased by the complainant vide  invoice (Annexure C-1) subject to return of water    purifier in question to the OP No.2 by the    complainant.

2.       To refund a sum of Rs.1900/-to the complainant,   which was charged during warranty as repair    charges.   
3.         To pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,000/-    to the complainant on account of mental agony,   physical harassment and litigation charges.

 

9.             The OP  No.2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which  the awarded sum vide para no.8(i & ii) shall carry an interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its realization. The complainant also shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP No.2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:23.02.2022

 

Dr. Susham Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini           Satpal     

                Member                  Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                      Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                            Member