View 609 Cases Against Eureka Forbes
BHAVESH AGG filed a consumer case on 28 Feb 2017 against EUREKA FORBES in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/933/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Mar 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 933/2015
Date of Institution 09/12/2015
Order Reserved on 28/02/2017
Date of Order 28/02/2017
In matter of
Mr Bhavesh Aggarwal, adult
R/o 319A, Ramesh Park
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092………………………….……..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-The Ureka Forbes Ltd.
RO- 4A, Hasanpur Village,
IP Extn., Patpargunj,
Delhi 110092
2-The Ureka Forbes Ltd,
Cop. Office- B299-300, Dwarka sec. 7,
New Delhi 110075………………………..………………………………… Opponents
Complainant……………………………………In Person
Opponent ……....…………………………….. Ex Parte
Quorum - Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant had purchased one RO system from Eureka Forbes for a sum of Rs 14,000/ on 23/12/2013 vide order no. 361047395 with 2 years AMC up to 22/12/2015. The system was not working from 08/11/2015, so complainant approached OP1 for getting problem rectified as the AMC was to expire soon. But despite of repeated follow up with OP1, his problem was not rectified thus he was compelled to purchase packed drinking water from the market.
Due to deficiency in service of OP1, filed this complaint claiming replacement of new RO system of Rs 14,000/- or heavy cost be awarded for harassment caused to the complainant.
Notice was served but, none appeared for OPs nor written statement or evidences were submitted. Case preceded Ex Parte and complainant filed his Ex Parte evidences on affidavit.
Complainant did not put his appearance for perusal of his case after filing evidence on affidavit even on the date of argument.
File perused and order was reserved. By scrutinizing the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that complainant had purchased one RO system, but no evidence was on record and also no evidence of AMC. He did not put the service proof that problem was ever lodged for repair of water purifier system. He submitted evidence of affidavit stating that AMC was renewed. So, he restated for replacement of new system with cost of harassment in affidavit. No evidence on record which could prove for purchase of packed drinking from market.
A poorly drafted complaint without making service center as party and no AMC evidence on record claiming for replacement of system, have no merit. No deficiency or any cause of action shown against Registered office and Corporate office of OPs pertaining to the manufacturing defect in the system.
So we are of the opinion that this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed, so dismissed with no cost to order.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
(Dr) P N Tiwari Member Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.