Delhi

East Delhi

CC/201/2018

AMAN KOCHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

EUREKA FORBES - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 201/18

 

Shri Aman Kocher

C-199/98, Upper Ground Floor

South Anakali, Krishna Nagar

Som Bazar, Delhi – 110 051                                       ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

M/s. Eureks Forbes Limited

(Through Ms. Kavita Gandhi

AVP (Finance & Taxation)

4-A, Hasanpur Village

Near Hasanpur DTC depot

I.P. Extension, Delhi – 110 092                                        …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 29.06.2018

Judgement Reserved on: 30.04.2019

Judgement Passed on: 07.05.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Aman Kocher against           M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that on the recommendation and assurance of Shri Rajesh, Senior Sales Specialist of OP, the complainant purchased R.O. vide invoice no. 091090044199 dated 19.03.2018 and made a payment of Rs. 19,999/- through bank transfer against P.O. no. 107345472174 dated 17.03.2018. 

            It was stated that RO stopped working on 27.04.2018 (after 1 month and 8 days from the date of installation) for which the complainant lodged a complaint with customer care centre of OP on 27.04.2018 itself.  Technician of OP visited to attend the complaint and rectified the same.

            Again on 21.05.2018, RO stopped working and the complaint was lodged vide no. 2007841642.  Technician of OP attended the complaint , washed the filter and went away stating that now the RO will work properly. 

            It was further stated that on 31.05.2018, RO again stopped working and again the complainant lodged a complaint vide no. 2007993875 on 31.05.2018. 

On 05.06.2018, Shri Abhishek, technician of OP checked the RO and stated that it required change of filter as well as other parts. He told that other parts were not available and he will replace the same on the next visit.  It was also stated that despite telephonic reminders on 6^th, 7^th, 8^th and 9^th June, 2018, no one turned up to replace the defective parts of R.O.  Aggrieved by the attitude of OP, the complainant sent a legal notice on 09.06.2018 which was neither replied nor complied.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund the amount of R.O. i.e. Rs. 19,999/-; Rs. 900/- towards interest   @ 18%; compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of damages for inconvenience/harassment and Rs. 16,500/- towards cost of litigation.

3.         OP refused to receive Dasti Summon and did not put the appearance; hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of driving license (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of invoice dated 19.03.2018 for Rs. 19,999/- (Ex.CW-1/2), copy of legal notice dated 09.06.2018 and its postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/3 & 1/4) and copy of dasti summon dated 01.10.2018 and 07.12.2018 (Ex.CW-1/5 & 1/6). 

5.         We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the testimony of the complainant which have gone unrebutted, it comes out that RO system which was installed at the residence of the complainant stopped working from time to time and on making the complaint, the fault was rectified.  However, on the last visit of the technician on 05.06.2018, the complainant was told that the filter was to be changed as well as other parts.  However, the technician did not turn up to complete and rectify the defects as pointed out by him. 

            Non-attending the complaint and not getting the defects rectified, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  When the complaint  has not been attended and there has been deficiency in service, certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated.

In view of the above, we order that complainant be paid Rs. 19,999/-, the basic price of RO.  We further order compensation for an amount of   Rs. 5,000/- which includes the cost of litigation.  The awarded amount be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order.  If not paid, the total amount of Rs. 24,999/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President