BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 6^th day of February 2018

Filed on : 21-06-2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.241/17

Between

Bhagavat Singh G., : Complainant

'Saroj Ganga', Firoz Gandhi Lane, (Party-in-Person)

Jetty Road, Vaduthala P.O.,

Ernakulam-682 023. And

1. Eureka Forbes Ltd., : Opposite parties

Rep. by its Sales Manager, (absent)

B1/B2, 701. 7^th Floor,

Marothon Innova, Marathon

Next Gen., B1/B2, 701,

7^th floor, Marathon Innova

Marathon Next Gen.,

Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013.

2. Sales Manager,

Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

Sales Office, Door No. 32/1787,

4^th Floor, A5, Tutus Towers,

Bypass Road, Padivattom,

Cochin-682 024.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant's case

2. The complainant purchased a water purifier from the Direct Selling Division of the opposite party M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 12,490/-, when the sales executive of the opposite party came to the house of the complainant on 15-04-2016 for canvassing the order. The water purifier was delivered on 20-04-2016 and it was installed in the house of the complainant on 30-04-2016 . During March 2017, the water purifier became defective and started showing green lights signal . When the complainant intimated the matter to the sale unit at Cochin, they had assured to send a technician to look into the matter . The technician on inspection found that the flow of water was broken even after the service . When this matter was reported, there was no response from the opposite parties . The complainant thereafter contacted the customer centre of the opposite party and they gave an assurance that a technician would sent within 48 hrs. But nobody turned up. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to issue a legal notice which the opposite parties 1 and 2 received by 25-05-2017 . The water purifier supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties became defunct within the warranty period and there was no service at all from the opposite parties during the warranty period. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and seeks refund, compensation and replacement of the machine purchased, through this complaint.

3. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared and sought time for version. However, no version was filed within the enlarge period and the opposite parties remained absent for the proceedings. Consequently, the opposite parties were set ex-parte.

4. When the matter came up for complainant’s evidence, the complainant marked Exbts. A1 to A6 documents to support his case. Heard the complainant.

5. As per Exbt. A1, the complainant purchased a product by name Dr. Aqua Guard Magna UV from the opposite parties on 20-04-2016. Exbt. A2 is the copy of the warranty terms and conditions. Accordingly, the complainant was entitled for warranty against defects arising from faulty workmanship and materials for 12 months from the date of installation or from 15 months from the date of sale whichever is earlier. As per Exbt. A3 bank statement, the complainant had paid the amount through bank for the purchase of the water purifier. On 15-05-2017 the complainant caused to issue a legal notice to the opposite parties as evidenced by Exbt. A4 and it was accepted by the opposite parties as per Exbt. A5 & A6 documents. The allegation of the complainant that the product purchased by the complainant was defective is not seen controverted by the opposite parties. The complainant had alleged on solemn oath that the product purchased by him was defective much before the expiry of the warranty period. In the absence of any allegations to the contrary we find no reason to suspect the genuineness of the complaint and the allegations contained therein. We therefore find that the product supplied to the complainant by the opposite party was defective and that he is entitled for replacement of the same by a new one with additional extended warranty for 6 months, in addition to the payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- which would include the costs of the proceedings.

6. In the result, we allow the complaint directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 who are jointly and severally liable

1. to take back the water purifier from the house of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and substitute the same with a new one of similar specifications with additional extended warranty for 6 months from the date of installation.

2. To pay the complainant a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- including costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of copy of receipt of the order or to deposit the same before CDRF, Ernakulam under intimation to the complainant.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of February 2018

Sd/-

Forwarded/By Order, Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Senior Superintendent. Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Appendix

Complainant's Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Copy of retail invoice

A2 : Warranty terms and conditions

A3 : Copy of statement

A4 : True copy of lawyer notice

dt. 15-05-2017

A5 : True copy of A.D. Card

A6 : True copy of A.D. card

Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil

Copy of order despatched on:

By Post: By Hand: