<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 31st JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2837/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Mallanagouda Patil,Flat No.302, Mythri Towers,‘B’, 4th Cross, Venkatadri Layout,Doresani Palya, J.P Nagar,7th Phase,Bangalore – 560076.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager / MD,Eureka Forbes,# 5, 1st Floor,Jayachamarajendra Industrial Area,Near Metro, Kanakapura Main Road,Yalachenahalli,Bangalore – 560062.<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 the defective Aqua guard with a brand new defect free one or refund the cost of the same and pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- 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 Eureka Forbes Aqua guard total Reviva – Reverse Osmosis for a total cost of Rs.9,990/- on 09.12.2008. When he received the said Aqua guard packed in a box he noticed there was no warranty card, user manual in addition to that product appear to be an old and used one. The said apparatus was not containing the monogram of 15 years warranty and some spares are also missing. He immediately contacted the OP to replace the same with a brand new defect free with all necessary components but it went in vain. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief 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 /> 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 lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP purchased one Aqua guard water purifier for a total cost of Rs.9,990/- manufactured and sold by OP on 09.12.2008. Receipt issued by the OP is produced. According to the complainant when he received the box containing the said Aqua guard to his utter shock and surprise it was not containing the warranty card, user manual. Even three point electric plug was damaged and the whole set appears to be an old and used one. There was no monogram indicating total reviva – RO and 15 years warranty. The same product which was supplied to his neighbor contained all these materials. Hence he felt that he is duped.<br /> <br /> 5. Immediately he contacted the OP. OP promised to furnish the warranty card, user manual, monogram etc., within 2 to 3 days but it failed to do so. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP, complainant demanded them to replace it with brand new defect free Aqua guard. That request also went in vain. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. OP though served with the notice, remained absent. Non appearance of the OP leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant.<br /> 6. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. The product sold to him appears to be not a brand new one but a used one. When that is so, complainant must have naturally suffered both monetary loss and mental agony that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstances he is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to replace the said defective Aqua guard with a brand new defect free set and provide all the basic infrastructure and the particulars as promised under the brochure within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. In default OP is directed to refund Rs.9,990/- along with 9% interest from 09.12.2008 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- and take back the defective Aqua guard. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<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 31st day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br />