CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC No. 180/2009 Monday, the 14th day of May, 2010 Petitioner : Jomy Thomas, Kottuthekkadathu House P.O Mundiappally, Thiruvalla Opposite parties : 1) Eureka Forbes Ltd. Customer Service Division, Service Head Quarters, No. 143,C-4, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Off Hosur Road, Bangalore. 2) Eureka Forbes Ltd., Regd. Office, 7, Chakraberia Road, (south) Kolkata. 3) (Authorised Service Centre for Eureka Forbes Ltd.) Smart Care Solutions, Erayilkadavu, Kottayam. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner, filed on 22..6..2009 is as follows: Petition is with regard to breach of trust of contract committed by the opposite parties. Petitioner had signed a service contract with the 3rd opposite party and paid agreed amount to representative of 3rd opposite party is the the first and second opposite parties. The service contract is signed on 29..7..2007 and is valid up to 28..7..2009. Under the terms of contract, 3rd opposite party has to send their service men for the routine maintenance services of the water purifier twice a year. According to the petitioner apart from this opposite parties are liable to repair and services the purifier as and when requested by the petitioner. When the petitioners water purifiers has some trouble petitioner had made several calls to the 3rd opposite party but the opposite parties had not perform as per the service contract. So, the petitioner on 17..2..2009 issued a registered notice to the 3rd opposite party but there was no response. According to the petitioner due to the act of the opposite party, petitioner suffered a lot. So, he prays for refund of the amount of service contract along with cost and compensation Opposite party one and two entered appearance. Notice to 3rd opposite party returned with endorsement ‘addressee left’. So petition filed a memo to allow the petitioner to delete 3rd opposite party from the party array and the same was allowed. Opposite party one and 2 filed joined version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party 1 and 2 they are only the manufacturers. Opposite party one and two admitted that 3rd opposite party is the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 1 and 2. 3rd opposite party wind up the establishment without the knowledge of the contesting parties. According to them 3rd opposite party illegally issued invoice for service contract and collected only contract amount from several customers by which they sustained huge loss. As and when the opposite parties came to know about the grievance of the complainant. They personally contacted and agreed to cure defect and extend the period of service to one year from the date of receipt of complaint but they rejected to accept the same. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A6 series documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 Crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party has not availed the service as per the service contract entered between the petitioner and the authorized service centre of the first and second opposite party. The invoice claim receipt of the service contract is produced and same is marked as Ext. A3. As per Ext. A3 the service centre of the opposite party 1 and 2 received an amount of Rs. 1290/- and the contract of service is valid from 30..7..2007 to 28..9..2009. Notice issued by the petitioner to the service centre Dtd: 17..3..2009. 17..2..2009 were produced and marked as Ext. A4 and A5. The stand of the opposite party 1 and 2 is that they admitted that Smart Care Solution, Erayilkadavu, Kottayam is their authorized service center. According to them the said service centre wind up establishment without the acknowledgement of the opposite party. Before the winding they illegally issued invoice cum receipts for service contract. In our view opposite party 1 and 2 cannot evade from their liability by saying that authorized service agent wind up the establishment and the service contract were entered without their consent. Ext. A3 is the invoice cum receipt of the Eureka Forbes. As a manufacturer they were liable for the act of their agent or the authorized service centers. Opposite party 1 and 2 is also duty bound to observe whether the services as premised is given to a poor consumer. In our view act of the opposite party in not giving service as per the service contract is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. In the result opposite party 1 and 2 is ordered to refund the amount received by their authorized agent to the petitioner. Without saying what had happened caused much loss and sufferings to the petitioner. So, we ordered the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. Opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs. 750/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of May, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner Ext. A1: Delivery Chelan Dtd: 8..8..2001. Ext. A2: User manual of water purifier Ext. A3: Invoice cum receipt for service contract Dtd: 29..9..2007 Ext. A4: Copy of complaint Dtd: 3/07 & 17..2..2009 Ext. A5series Postal receipts Ext. A6 series Postal receipts. By Order, Senior Superintendent amp/ 6cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
