Delhi

East Delhi

CC/191/2016

ARUN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

EUREKA FORBES - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2018

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. 191/16

 

Shri Arun Kumar Singh

R/o D-297, Ganesh Nagar Complex

Pandav Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited

Through its Managing Director

B1/B2, 701, Marathon Innova

Marathon Next Gen

Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg

Lower Parel, MUmba – 400013

 

2. M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited

Through its Branch Manager

Delhi – IV – CRC

4A, Hasanpur Village

Near Hasanpur DTC Depot

New Delhi – 110 092                                                       …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 22.04.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 24.05.2018

Judgement Passed on: 25.05.2018

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 Arun Kumar Singh against  M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited, Mumbai (OP-1) and M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited, Delhi (OP-2) 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 08.01.2016, the complainant got installed ‘Dr. Aeroguard SCPR 200 Air Purifier’ by paying an amount of   Rs. 13,990/- under invoice of dated 11.01.2016.  The product was under warranty for one year. 

          Despite best care being taken by the complainant, the product started malfunctioning on 13.03.2016.  All the lights in front of switch started blinking, whereas only one or two lights should keep blowing.   The complainant switched off the machine and called the customer care on 13.03.2016 and explained the problem.  He was given complaint no. 86003383.  On this complaint, one of the executive visited the house of the complainant who informed him that it was having manufacturing defect. 

          Though, the complainant contacted them from time to time, but he was informed that the said complaint was closed.  He sent an email on 19.03.2016 to the customer care of OP.  The complainant was asked to explain the problem from time to time.  He sent emails on 21.03.2016, 23.03.2016, 28.03.2016, 31.03.2016, 02.04.2016 and 03.04.2016.  He finally sent an email for initiating legal action.

          It has been stated that this act of OP was negligent in providing the service for which he has suffered financial loss as well as mental pain and suffering.  Thus, he has prayed for direction to OP to refund the cost of machine i.e. Rs. 13,990/-; compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 50,000/- cost of litigation.    

3.       Notice of the complaint was given to OP.  They appeared in the complaint, but during the course of proceedings, they stopped appearing and have been proceeded ex-parte. 

4.       In support of his complaint, the complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit where he has examined himself.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of Delivery Challan dated 07.01.2016 (Exhibit C-1), copy of sales receipt dated 11.01.2016 (Exhibit C-2), copy of user guide alongwith warranty terms and conditions (Exhibit C-3), copies of emails (Exhibit C-4) and copy of legal notice dated 05.04.2016 (Exhibit C-5).

5.       We have perused the evidence coupled with the documents as complainant also stopped appearing.  From the testimony of the complainant coupled with the documents such as copy of Delivery Challan dated 07.01.2016 (Exhibit C-1) and retail invoice of dated 11.01.2016 (Exhibit C-2), it is evident that complainant purchased ‘Dr. Aeroguard SCPR 200 Air Purifier’ for an amount of Rs. 13,990/-.  From mails which have been got exhibited as Exhibit C-4, it is noticed that complainant made a complaint on 19.03.2016 with regard to the defect in the machine which have not been attended by the company. 

          The fact that the defect has not been rectified by OP and testimony of the complainant have gone unrebutted, the version given in the testimony has to be relied upon.  Since the machine was under warranty, the company was required to rectify the same.  The fact that they have not rectified the defect as pointed out by the complainant, certainly, there has been deficiency on the part of M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited (OP).  By not rectifying the defects promptly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated. 

          It is, therefore, ordered that M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited (OP) shall rectify the defect of ‘Dr. Aeroguard SCPR 200 Air Purifier’ and shall extend the warranty for a period of one year.  If the defect is not rectified, they will pay the cost of the Dr. Aeroguard SCPR 200 Air Purifier’ i.e. Rs. 13,990/-.  They are also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation on account of mental pain and suffering which includes the cost of litigation. 

          This order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of order.  If not complied, the awarded amount 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