| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR Consumer Complaint No. 23 of 2015 Date of Institution : 08.01.2015 Date of Decision : 03.09.2015 Shri Aman Gopal S/o Sh.Om Parkash Sharma r/o H.No. 62, Gali Odeon, St. No.2, Bhawani Nagar, Majitha Road, Amritsar ...Complainant Versus - Eureka Forbes, Regd.Office at 7, Chakreberia Road (South) Kolkata 700025 through its Principal Officer
- Eureka Forbes, Area Sales Office at Eureka Forbes Ltd., 252-A, Sant Nagar, above Reliance Fresh, East of Kailash,New Delhi 110065 through its Principal Officer
- Eureka Forbes, Divisional Sales Office at 250 Basant Avenue, IMA Building, Race Course Road, Amritsar 143001 through its Divisional Manager/Principal Officer
....Opposite Parties Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Present : For the complainant Sh.S.K.Sharma,Advocate For the opposite parties : Ex-parte Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President Ms. Kulwant Bajwa, Member Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by :- Bhupinder Singh, President - Present complaint has been filed by Aman Gopal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one set of RO Reviva Model for Rs. 9990/- from the opposite parties on 30.11.2009. According to the complainant at the time of sale, opposite parties had issued invoice cum contract receipt for semi comprehensive service contract of RO for providing free service for the first one year for the period from 15.3.2014 to 14.3.2015 for which the complainant paid Rs. 2300/- to the opposite parties. Complainant has alleged that the said RO product is not functioning properly. The complainant contacted Divisional office at Amritsar personally as well as telephonically, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to to remove the defects in the RO system. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
- Opposite parties in their written version have submitted that complainant purchased the RO machine on 30.11.2009 and after expiry of one year warranty, he took current maintenance contract on 15.3.2014 for one year i.e. from 15.3.2014 to 14.3.2015 on payment of Rs. 2300/- for semi comprehensive annual maintenance contract. It was submitted that as per terms and conditions of the said contract, complainant is required to pay for the membrane, if it is replaced under this current annual maintenance contract. First service was provided to the complainant on 15.3.2014. Second free service was provided on 28.7.2014. A complaint was received on 18.10.2014 and attended by Mr. Amit on 19.10.2014 and it was detected that membrane of the machine was chocked and needed to be replaced on chargeable basis. Since the complainant is having semi comprehensive AMC & within the semi comprehensive AMC the complainant was asked to pay for the membrane, as per terms of the contract. But the complainant refused to pay the amount for replacement of membrane and threatened the technician that he would retain his tool kit if they did not replace the membrane free of cost. He also used very rude and unethical language. It was submitted that opposite party is still ready to provide free contractual services under the contract as per the agreed terms and is ready to replace the membrane as per the terms of contract if he agrees to pay for it. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 , copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, copy of invoice cum contract receipt Ex.C-3, copy of receipt dated 30.11.2009 Ex.C-4.
- We have carefully gone through the averments of the complainant, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it is clear that complainant purchased one set of RO Reviva Model for a sum of Rs. 9990/- on 30.11.2009. The opposite party also gave semi comprehensive service contract of the said RO for providing free service for one year for the period from 15.3.2014 to 14.3.2015 on receipt of Rs. 2300/-. The said semi comprehensive service contract is Ex.C-3. The RO did not function properly. The complainant contacted the Divisional office of the opposite party at Amritsar personally as well as telephonically. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant nor they repaired the RO set of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
- Whereas the case of the opposite parties as per their written version is that the machine of the complainant was under AMCX on 15.3.2014 to 14.3.2015 and he has paid a sum of Rs. 2300/- for the semi comprehensive annual maintenance contract (AMC). The receipt of said AMC is Ex.C-3. As per terms and conditions of the Semi Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract, the complainant is required to pay for the membrane if it is replaced under the current AMCX. First service was provided to the complainant on 15.3.2014, second free service was provided on 28.7.2014. The complaint was received from the complainant on 18.10.2014 which was attended by the mechanic of the opposite party on 19.10.2014 and it was detected that membrane of the machine was choked and needed to be replaced on chargeable basis as the complainant is having semi comprehensive AMC. The complainant was asked to pay for the membrane as per the terms of the contract. But the complainant refused to pay the amount for replacement of membrane rather threatened the technician of the opposite parties that he would retain his tool kit if they did not replace the membrane free of cost. The opposite parties in their written version have submitted that opposite parties have acted as per terms and conditions of the Semi Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract Ex.C-3, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased one set of RO Reviva Model for a sum of Rs. 9990/- on 30.11.2009 and thereafter, the complainant got semi comprehensive service contract of the said RO for providing free service for one year for the period from 15.3.2014 to 14.3.2015 on payment of Rs.2300/-.The said semi comprehensive service contract is Ex.C-3. The RO set of the complainant became defective. Complainant alleged that he contacted the Divisional office of the opposite party at Amritsar personally as well as telephonically. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant nor they repaired the RO set of the complainant. Opposite Parties submitted that the complainant approached Opposite Party on 18.10.2014 with complaint in RO set. Said complaint was attended by the technician of the opposite party on 19.10.2014 and it was detected that membrane of the machine was choked and needed to be replaced on chargeable basis. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has obtained semi comprehensive AMC and under the said AMC, the complainant was required to pay the charges of membrane as per the terms of the contract. The complainant could not rebut this averments of the Opposite Parties regarding Semi Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract. So, the Opposite Parties were justified in asking the complainant to pay charges of the membrane. The Opposite Parties have given free services to the RO of the complainant on 15.3.2014 and 28.7.2014 and the Opposite Parties is still ready to repair the RO set of the complainant and make it fully functional by replacing the membrane on chargeable basis as per the Semi Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract. So, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties .
- Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 03-09-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
