Kerala

Idukki

CC/50/2018

Dr.Jose Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :16/03/18

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of July 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 50/2018

Between

Complainant : Dr.Jose, S/o Joseph,

Vayattattil Chethikottu House,

Purapuzha P.O., Purappuzha Village.

(By Adv: Peter V. Joseph)

And

Opposite Party 1 . Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

B1/B2 701, Marathon, Next Gen, Inovva,

Off Ganapatatraokadam marg.

Lower Parel Mumbai 400 013.

2 . Eureka Forbes Ltd., 9/116B,

Puthiya Road, Eroor, Tripunithura Pin 682 306.

3 . Aquatak Services,

Perumattom, Muvattupuzha.

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased a Eureka Forbes Aquaguard Enhance UV water purifier from the second opposite party and the first opposite party being the manufacturer assured free service for a period of one year from the date of purchase. As such, a free service was done by the first opposite party on 29/10/2013. Thereafter two contracts of services were entered into by the first opposite party with the complainant. As per the contract, the first opposite party had undertaken to carry out periodic maintenance of the said product. During the periods, the personnel of the first opposite party conducted service of the said product and on 12/11/16 the service personnel of the first opposite party conducted service and replaced parts for Rs.1,650/-. Thereafter the product started manifesting functional defects. The complainant informed the first and the second opposite parties about the defects through telephone. But they refused to attend the grievance of the

(Cont.....2)

-2-

 

complainant. Finally, the personnel of the third opposite party on 06/11/2017 came to the complainant's house, claiming to be the authorised franchise of the first opposite party. They took the equipment for service and returned the product one week later and they claimed to have conducted service and replaced parts including PCB, Filter and A-carbon, for which the complainant paid Rs.2,900/-. After the said service, the equipment manifested continuous defects. After that the complainant contacted the personnel of the third opposite party. But they did not care about the grievance of the complainant. The complainant demanded many times for repairing the equipment to opposite parties. But they defeating purposely, which amounts to deficiency in service. They had played fraud on the complainant. So they all liable to repair the water purifier in free of cost or replace the said product with a new equipment and also compensate the damages and hardships suffered by the complainant.

 

Notice served to opposite parties. The first opposite party did not appear before this Forum. So they called absent and set exparte. The second opposite party appear before the Forum and filed a statement. The third opposite party did not appear before the Forum so they called absent and set exparte.

 

Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit and documents. Ext.P1 to Ext.P6 were marked. Ext.P1 is the purchase bill of Rs.10,574/- bill No: 006075, Ext.P2 is the service request activity report, Ext.P3 is the service contract invoice cum receipt 24332606 dated 15/12/13, Ext.P4 is the service contract invoice cum receipt 22858402 dated 19/12/13, Ext.P5 is the Aquatak service invoice cum receipt No.1211 dated 06/11/2017 and Ext.P6 is the true copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant dated 02/09/2018.

 

Heard,

 

The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

 

The Point:- It is an admitted fact that the complaint purchased a Eureka Forbes Aquaguard Enhance UV water purifier from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party and it is malfunctioned within the period of agreement. The complainant produced 6 documents before the Forum. The complainant proved his case by producing documents and affidavit. It is clear that opposite parties sold the above said product to the complainant. Notice served to the opposite parties. But the first and third opposite parties did not appear before the Forum. So they called absent set exparte. The second opposite party appear before the Forum and filed a statement about the list of their authorised service centres. But they did not prove their case. They did not adduced any evidence from their part.

 

Hence the petition allowed. The Forum directed the opposite parties to repair the water purifier in free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant or to replace the product with a new one and also directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5000/- as damages and Rs.3500/- as cost of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of July, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont.....4)

-4-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The purchase bill of Rs.10,574/- bill No: 006075

Ext.P2 - The service request activity report

Ext.P3 - The service contract invoice cum receipt 24332606 dated 15/12/13

Ext.P4 - The service contract invoice cum receipt 22858402 dated 19/12/13

Ext.P5 - The Aquatak service invoice cum receipt No.1211 dated 06/11/2017

Ext.P6 - The true copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant dated 02/09/2018

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT