IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 331/15
Friday the 29th day of January,2016
Petitioner : Gigi George,
Kottappuram Veedu,
Cheeramchira PO, Changanachery
Pin:686 106
(Adv. Sebastian Kurian)
Vs.
Opposite parties : Eureka Forbes,
IInd Floor, Mundukottackal Chambers,
Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam-686 004.
2) Uthara Services, Room No.47,
2nd Floor, Revenu Tower,
Changanachery 686 101.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 4/12/15 is as follows.
The complainant on 13-10-2003 purchased an “AQUA GUARD NOVA WATER FILTER CUM PURIFIER” from the opposite party by paying Rs.7590/- and it was used for the last 12 years. According to the complainant after free service period he had continuously renewed the service agreement by remitting the amount as demanded by the 1st opposite party. According to the complainant on believing the representation made by the agent of the 2nd opposite party that for getting better service for 3 years, on 2-11-12 within service agreement period, he had entered a new service agreement, by paying Rs.4160/. As per the said agreement, every year some part of the product is to be replaced on free of cost. But after the renewal of the service agreement the opposite party has not cared to provide service as agreed except 1st year service. Furthermore even after repeated request the opposite party has not cared to repair the water purifier. According to the complainant the act of opposite party in not providing proper service within service agreement period, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
Notice to opposite party 1 returned with an endorsement as ‘Add. left’. So it is considered as deemed service. Notice to opposite party 2 was served, but opposite party 2 has not cared to appear or file version.
Points for considerations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A5 documents.
Point No.1
The case of the complainant is that opposite parties have not provide proper service of the water filter cum purifier, as per the service agreement and even after repeated request for repairing, the opposite party has not cared to repair the complainant’s water filter cum purifier, which was purchased from the 1st opposite party. Complainant produced the invoice issued by the opposite party and the same is marked as Ext.A1. From Ext.A1 it can be seen that on 13-10-2003 the complainant purchased an Aqua guard Nova Water filter cum purifier for Rs.7590/- from the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the invoice cum receipt for service contract for the period from 29-12-07 to 28-12-08. In Ext.A2 it can be seen that the seal of the 2nd opposite party is affixed, authorized service center of the 1st opposite party. Ext.A3 is the invoice cum receipt for service contract for the period from 28-12-08 to 27-12-2010. Ext.A4 is the invoice cum receipt for service contract for the period from 2-1-111 to 1-1-13. Ext.A5 is the invoice cum receipt for service contract for the period from 2-11-12 to 1-11-115. From Ext.A5 it can be seen that opposite party had collected Rs.4160/- for 3 years service of the water filter cum purifier. From Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 it can be seen that complainant entered Ext.A5 service contract is within the period of Ext.A4 service contract. From Ext.A2 to Ext.A5 documents it can be seen that after free service period the complainant had continuously entered service contract with the opposite parties. From Ext.A5 it can be seen that the defect is within the period of service contract. The case of the complainant is proved by Ext.A1 to Ext.A5 documents. So in our view the act of opposite parties in not providing proper service within the service contract period and not repairing the defect of the complainant’s water filter cum purifier even after repeated requests, amounts to deficiency in service. Due to the said act of the opposite parties complainant had suffered much mental pain and hardships. So he is to be compensated. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 complaint is allowed.
In the result,
- The opposite parties are ordered to repair the complainant’s water filter
cum purifier as proper working condition on free of cost.
- The opposite parties are ordered to extent the service contract with the
complainant for 2 years from the date of this Order.
3)The opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to
the complainant.
4)The opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the
complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If not complied as directed the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of January,2016
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents for the complainant.
Ext.A1-Invoice No.3276 dtd 13/10/2003 for Rs.7590
Ext.A2-Service Contract dtd 15/15/07
Ext.A3-Service Contract dtd 27/12/08
Ext.A4-Service Contract dtd 02/01/11
Ext.A5-Service Contract dtd 18/12/12
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
