<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.02.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 09th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.509/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Basavaraju,Residing at No.1070/A,9th Cross, Kshadakshrayaiah Mutt Extension,Tiptur.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1) Eureka Forbes,Channel Partner,Vishal Inc.Shop No.16, 1st Floor,T.P.S Complex,M.G Road,Tumkur.2) The Manager,Eureka Forbes, No.37, 2nd Floor, Naveen Complex,Ganganagar, Bellary Road,Bangalore – 560 032.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace Aqua Water Purifier by name RO with Aqua Water Purifier Sense RO and pay a compensation and litigation cost on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased one Aqua Water Purifier from OP for a consideration of Rs.14,500/-. He paid an advance of Rs.2,500/- vide receipt No.981 on 28.04.2008. OP promised to deliver the said Aqua Water Purifier to his home. Within two hours one of the representative of OP brought Aqua Purifier by name RO. It was not Sense RO for which complainant placed the order. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to deliver the Aqua Purifier as per the order placed by him went in futile. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP is duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being carried away with the advertisement and publication issued by the OP thought of purchasing one Aqua Water Purifier Sense RO. The cost of which was Rs.14,500/-. He paid an advance of Rs.2,500/- on 28.04.2008. OP passed the receipt No.981. It is produced. OP promised to deliver the said Aqua Purifier to his home within two hours. Thereafter one of the representative of the OP came to his house and delivered one Aqua Water purifier RO. It is not acceptable to the complainant because he felt it is not of a good quality.<br /> <br /> 5. Complainant placed the order for Aqua Water Purifier Sense RO. That was not delivered. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to replace it went in futile. The Aqua Water Purifier supplied by the OP was not working properly nor giving expected purified water. Hence complainant suffered both monetary loss and mental agony. The repeated requests and demands made to OP went in futile. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony.<br /> <br /> 6. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits the allegations made by the complainant. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence he is entitled for the relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace brand new defect free Aqua Water Purifier RO by Aqua Water Purifier Sense RO for the same cost and take back the water purifier supplied to the complainant and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. Failing in which OP is directed to refund Rs.2,500/- paid as a part payment of the purifier along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 09th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br />