Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/269/2016

Surinder Kumar Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes Water Purifier - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/269/2016
Date of Institution	:	21/04/2016
Date of Decision	:	16/11/2016

 

Surinder Kumar Mittal, H.No.306, Sector 12, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Eureka Forbes Water Purifier, through Customer Response Centre, SCO 14, 1^st Floor, Sector 7C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160019.

……Opposite Party

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	None for OP

                       

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Surinder Kumar Mittal, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Eureka Forbes Water Purifier, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP) alleging deficiency in service by the OP and seeking direction to the OP to replace the defective unit free of cost; pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses and pay 10 times the amount of the purchase of the unit as compensation.

                The facts, in brief, are that on 29.5.2012 the complainant purchased one unit of Sensa water purifier from the OP for Rs.18,990/-. The OP provided one year Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) which was successfully discharged till 28.5.2013.  The AMC was got extended on 24.6.2013 for a further period till 23.6.2014 and thereafter for another two years from 19.8.2014 till 18.8.2016.  In the month of November or December 2014, the said unit developed a problem which was brought to the notice of the service executive who had come to service the unit.  The complainant was informed that the sensor of the unit had become faulty and needed replacement because the same could not be repaired.  But, in spite of asking by the complainant, the said sensor was not replaced. Again the problem was reported by the complainant to the executives of the OP in the year 2015 and thereafter on 28.1.2016, but, the OP failed to take any corrective measures.  Hence, this complaint praying for the reliefs mentioned above.

2.         After receiving notice of the complaint, the OP appeared and filed its written statement alleging that being satisfied with the product sold and the after-sales services of the OP, the complainant took an AMC and the present AMC is valid till 18.8.2016. It is pleaded that the OP provided all the timely, contractual services to the complainant on 19.8.2014, 17.11.2014, 6.2.2015, 31.5.2015, 27.8.2015, 28.11.2015, 28.1.2016 and February 2016 and has always been and still is ready to provide all the required contractual services.  The OP has denied that the machine developed any problem in the month of November, 2014. The OP denied that the sensor is defective or it needs replacement or the machine is mal functioning.  It is alleged that with regard to repairing the existing worn-out/defective parts or replacing the same, decision of Eureka Forbes Ltd. shall be final.  The OP denied all the contentions of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         After filing reply and evidence, the OP did not turn up.  However, the complainant submitted his written arguments.  We have also heard the complainant in person and have gone through the record.
5.         The complainant argued that in spite of repeated complaints by him, the sensor of the water purifier unit has not been replaced, as such, the conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant has to suffer mentally and physically. Thus, the OP is liable to pay compensation besides replacement of the unit.
6.         Annexure P-1 proves that on 29.5.2012, the complainant purchased one Aquaguard Total Sensa (SMP+) WP for Rs.18,990/- and it is an admitted fact that from time to time, the complainant entered into a contract for annual maintenance with the OP which was valid till 18.8.2016. The allegation of the complainant is that the sensor of the said water purifier unit is defective and required replacement whereas the said allegation is denied by the OP.
7.         The OP itself has attached with the written reply documents for providing maintenance to the complainant. The service activity report dated 28.11.2015 reveals that the outlet wall and top cover are pending.  The service activity report dated 28.1.2016 clearly proves that the complainant gave a writing on the report itself that the cap and sensor are defective and he lodged many complaints. However, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence that the sensor was replaced by the OP.  Once on 28.1.2016, the complainant was not satisfied with the service provided by the OP, it was the duty of the OP to satisfy the complainant either by replacing the sensor or satisfy the complainant that the sensor is in order and the unit was working perfectly.  Even after filing of the present consumer complaint by the complainant, the OP did not visit his house to satisfy him or to report that the sensor of the unit was working perfectly.  There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of the complainant that the sensor was defective.  So, we have no hesitation to hold that the OP did not replace the sensor which was defective, as such, the OP is deficient in services.
8.         Admittedly, the water purifier unit is not within warranty period and the warranty period has already expired. Even if the OP has a maintenance contract with the complainant, it has no responsibility to replace the said unit. The responsibility of the OP is just to maintain the unit and in case any part is defective, then to replace the same. So, the request of the complainant that the OP be directed to replace the unit cannot be accepted.  However, the OP can be directed to change the sensor and make the unit fully functional.
9.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed as under:-

(i)     To replace the sensor of the water purifier unit and make the same fully functional as per the terms and conditions of the AMC.

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation. 

10.         This order be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/11/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President