Present:  1. Sri.P.K.Sasi, President.

                                 2. Smt. Sheena.V.V, Member.

                                 3. Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member

16^th day of December 2017

CC 333/17 filed on 26/05/17

Complainant   :     Sariga Pramodkumar, W/o Pramood Kumar,

                             Pandiyath House, P.O. Kanjani, Thrissur.   

                             (By Adv. A.D. Benny, Thrissur)

Opposite Party:     Eureka Forbes, Rep. by Managing Director,

                             Aqua Amruth Authorised Franchisee, 5/485/H,

                             Meluvalappil Building, Peringavu, Thrissur.

O R D E R

By Shri. M.P.Chandrakumar, Member :    

          The case of the complainant is that she, along with her husband, working abroad, had purchased an AQUAGUARD, vide Invoice No. 688, from  the opposite party by paying Rs.22,990/-. At the time of purchase, the opposite parties have informed that the product was of good quality. While using the product, the complainant noticed certain complaints, in its functioning. Gradually, after two months, it was noticed that the product was not functioning. When the matter was complained to the opposite parties, they inspected the product and informed that the problem was with the membrane and chip. They promised to rectify the defects. However, the opposite parties have not yet rectified the defect. According to the complainant, the opposite parties have sold him a product of low quality. Also, the opposite parties have failed in providing after sales service and thus have done deficiency in service.  The complainant is of the view that it is the duty of the opposite parties to rectify the defects. Hence, the complaint filed to direct the opposite parties, to pay the cost of the product, being Rs.22,990/-, along with compensation and cost.

          2) Even though the notice from the Forum was served to the opposite parties, they were called  but absent before the Forum. Hence set Ex-parte. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the invoice  No. 688 6-10-2016; Ext. P2  is the lawyer notice dated 20-04-17; Ext. P3 is the postal receipt. The complainant has submitted the  product  before the Forum, which is marked as MO1. There is no contra evidence.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties is directed to refund Rs.22,990/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand nine hundred and ninety only) to the complainant, in addition to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and cost, within a month of the receipt of the orders. After complying this order, the opposite parties can collect the product from the Forum.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 16^th day of December 2017.

               Sd/-                               Sd/-                      Sd/-

M.P.Chandrakumar               Sheena.V.V.            P.K.Sasi,                         Member                                Member                            President.                                                             

                             Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext. P1 invoice  No. 688 6-10-2016

Ext. P2  lawyer notice dated 20-04-17

Ext. P3 postal receipt.

MO1 Aqua guard.

                                                                                            Id/-

                                                                                      Member