Orissa

Cuttak

CC/16/2022

Krishna Govinda Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

H B Dash & associates

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                          C.C.No.16/2022

                        Krishna Govinda Das,

S/O:Late Dolagovinda Das,

At:Bentakara Pada,Trisulia,

Plot No.179/382,Cuttack, P.S.Baranga,

Dist:Cuttack-Pin-754005, Odisha.                                     ... Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       EUREKA FORBES LIMITED,

7,Chakraberia Road,South Kolkotta,

PIN-700025, represented through it’s Region Head,

                          Kolkatta.

 

2.       EUREKA FORBES LIMITED,Forest Park

Ground Floor,Bharati Tower,Bhubaneswsar,

                  Odisha,PIN-751001

Represented through Odisha Head(Direct Marketting),

                 Bhbaneswar.

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   31.01.2022

Date of Order:  19.09.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. H.B.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps      :                    None.  

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

                                                                       

            Case of the complainant in short is that  on 12.12.2020he had purchased an Aquaguard Iron remover for purifying his drinking water from the O.Ps and had paid a sum of Rs.97,999/- to that effect.  It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased the said Aquaguard being allured by the advertisement made by the O.Ps offering TWM-COMBO-7, which includes Suraksha Chakra Combo 7, Acquaguard sediment Filter and Aquaguard Iron Filter.  After installation of that Aquaguard, the complainant found that the water is not free from iron and suspected that the said acquaguard machine to be a defective one.  He complained to the O.Ps about the defect in the Aquaguard machine.  Technical personnel of the O.Ps came and observed and assured the complainant that the defect would be removed within two months automatically.  However, the defect could not be removed and clean water did not flow out from the said Aquaguard machine.  As the O.Ps did not rectify the defect in the acquaguard machine, the complainant on 12.10.21 sent a legal notice by speed post to the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not respond to such notice.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to return the price of the Aquaguard iron remover and sediment filter amounting to Rs.98,000/-.  He also prayed for a direction to the O.Ps for payment of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to him for his mental agony.

            The complainant in order to prove his case has filed Xerox copies of certain documents.

2.         The O.Ps have neither appeared nor contested this case, hence, they were set exparte.

3.         The points for determination are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

            ii.         Whether the O.Ps no.1 & 2 are deficient in their service ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Point no.i & ii.

            For the sake of convenience points no.i & ii are taken up first for consideration here in this case.

From the documents as available in the case record and from the averments of the complaint petition, it reveals that the complainant had purchased a water purifying machine of Eureka Forbes Ltd. i.e. Aquaguard filter(TWM-COMBO-7)  on payment of Rs.97,999/- from the O.P on 12.12.2020.  The said Aquaguard machine developed certain problems and did not purify the water properly.  The complainant had lodged the complaint before the O.Ps in order to rectify the defect but the O.Ps could not rectify the defect.  Though the service personnel of the O.Ps had gone to rectify the defect but could not rectify the same.  Hence, the complainant on 12.10.2021 had sent a legal notice to the O.Ps which remained unattended.  The O.Ps did not rectify the defect of Aquaguard filter during the warranty period. The plea of complainant remains unchallenged.  Thus, the O.Ps are infact deficient in their service towards the complainant by not rectifying the defect in his newly purchased water purifying machine.  Hence, the present case is maintainable.  Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.iii.

            From the discussions as made above, it can well be concluded that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is allowed exparte against both the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to refund the cost of the Aquaguard filter(TWM-COMBO-7)  amounting to Rs.97,999/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 5.12.20 till the total amount is quantified to the complainant.  They are further directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of his litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th day of September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                           Member.

 

              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                             President