DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.52/2018
Apoorv Shukla
S/o Dr. Virendra Kr. Shukla
B-393, 3rd Floor, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi-110025 ….Complainant
Versus
Eureka Forbes Pvt. Ltd.
B1/B2,701, 7th Floor Marathon,
Innova Marathon Nextgen,
GanpatRao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 20.02.2018
Date of Order : 06.12.2021
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The facts of the complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the Complainant bought a water purifier for usage at his home manufactured by the Opposite Party being model Dr. Aquaguard Magna NXT HD RO+UV, for which an advance payment of Rs.17,790/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety only) was made vide a Cheque bearing No. 168823 drawn on Saraswat Bank dated 20.05.2021. The said machine was delivered the machine on 22.05.2017 at his residence. However, at the time of installation of the said machine i.e. Dr. Aquaguard Magna NXT HD RO+UV, the installation expert of the Opposite Party found the “Post carbon filter” damaged, on account of which the machine could not be installed in the premises of the complainant. Therefore, on the very same date the complainant requested for a replacement of the said machine but to no avail. After a delay of two days i.e. 24.05.2017 another person from the OP visited the Complainant with a “post carbon filter”. It is the case of the complainant that OP brought a new/unused filter brought a very old/used post carbon filter which was also not of the description and size as required for the model of the machine bought by the Complainant and therefore the same could not be fitted to the machine bought by the Complainant.
Further, the complainant states that after a long delay of around a month it was only on 29.06.2017 that a new machine was delivered to the premises of the Complainant, which was a different machine, however, the delivery challan bore the same name of the machine as the one originally ordered by the Complainant herein. The Complainant states and has produced the said challan wherein his objection is recorded to the delivery of the new machine. He has further stated that the machine is lying as it is at his premises in the condition as it was delivered by the OP and has not been used by the Complainant or even unpacked for that matter.
Notice was issued to the OP and were delivered to their address however none has appeared on behalf of the OP and they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.09.2018.
Having gone through the documents on record and hearing the arguments of the counsel of the complainant we are of the view that OP is deficient in providing service to the complainant firstly in not being able to have a proper product (that was ordered by the complainant) installed his house and secondly in providing a different product to the complainant after he complained about the ‘post carbon filter’ in the first RO machine. The product has been lying unused at the house of the complainant for all these years and it was produced before us for our perusal.
This Commission therefore directs the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 17,790/- with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of payment by the complainant till realization. This amount is to be paid by the OP within two months from the date of this order failing which they would also have to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. It is clarified that the OP is entitled to take back the unused machine with them from the complainant at the time of payment. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copies of the order to the parties.
