COMPLAINT FILED: 30-03-2009<br /> DISPOSED: 05-08-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 5th August 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.739/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr.Abhinandan Nath,No.12, Shalome Kodathi Gate,Carmelaram Post,Sarjapur Main Road,Bangalore – 560 035.Party in PersonV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Eureka Forbes Ltd.,Sales Office,Bldg. No.15, 1st & 2nd Floor,17th ‘A’ Main, 5th Block,Koramangala,Bangalore – 560 095.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the cost of water purifier and pay compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant purchased one water purifier on 16-01-2008 for a total cost of Rs.8,850/-. The said water purifier had installed in his house, then within 6 months he noticed defect with the same. He immediately contacted the OP, OP without testing TDS level of the water purifier installed the same. Complainant was unable to get expected filtered water. His investment went in vain. His repeated request and demands made to OP to rectify the defects or replace or refund the cost went in futile. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. <br /> <br /> 3. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bonafide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda made by the OP purchased water purifier Model Total – 1 Nova for a total cost of Rs.8,850/- on 16-01-2008. It carried warranty, but within a span of 6 months he noticed defect with the said water purifier. He was not getting the expected filtered water. So, he immediately contacted the OP. <br /> <br /> 6. It is further contended that OP without testing the TDS level of the filtered water installed the same. When he requested the OP either to replace or refund the cost of the said purifier, OP advised him to go for advanced Reverse Osmosis Filter. OP would have advised the complainant before he purchased Model Total – 1 Nova, water was not tested before such advice. Hence complainant felt unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents it appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discord his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-appearance of the OP even after the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. The fact that the said purifier found to be defective within warranty period is also not at dispute. <br /> <br /> 8. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After the receipt of entire cost of the purifier, OP failed to deliver defect free water purifier, thereby accrued the wrongful gain to itself and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstances the complainant deserves certain relief. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following :<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed in part. <br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.8,850/- and take back the defective water purifier supplied to the complainant under invoice on 16-01-2008 and pay a litigation cost of Rs.250/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 5th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br />