Delhi

West Delhi

CC/18/307

SONU DHADIALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

EUREKA FORBES - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI

 

 

CASE NO. 307/18

In the matter of:

 

SONU DHADIALA

House No. G-10,

Mansarovar Garden,

New Delhi- 110015                                                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

EUREKA FORBES LTD.,

Shop No. PNG-1,

Patel Nagar Metro Station,

Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.

 

Eureka Forbes Limited, 17-A/41,

WEA, Third Floor,

Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh,

Delhi-110005.

 

Eureka Forbes Ltd.

B-1/B-2, 701, 7^th Floor,

Marathon Innova Marathon Nextgen,

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013                                             …….RESPONDENT(s)

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                DATE OF DECISION:

07.08.2018 10.10.2022 31.10.2022

 

 

Ms Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms Richa Jindal, Member (Female)

Mr Anil Kumar Koushal, Member (General)

Order passed by Ms Richa Jindal, Member

 

ORDER

1. The complainant filed the present complaint with respect to deficient services provided by the opposite party/OP as well as towards the mental agony, harassment, pain and other sufferings to the complainant received by the OP. The facts leading to the present matter are as follows:

The above-named complainant most respectfully submitted as under:

1. The complainant had purchased a Aqua Guard water Purifier on 27-6-2018 for a sum of Rs. 13,290/- from the respondent no.1,but since day one water purifier did not give satisfactory result.
2. The water purifier was delivered at complainant's house after 4 to 5 days through courier with Tax Invoice issued from Eureka Forbes Ltd.
3. The complainant contacted officer of the respondent no.1 namely Mr. Aman Raj, dealing hand at respondent no.1 about poor performance of water purifier but he failed to give any satisfactory reply.
4. The complainant also made telephonic complaint vide complaint no. 0103200264 dated 4-7-2018.
5. After making contact with the respondent a no. of times over telephone. Complainant sent complaint to parent company of respondent as well as agency which issued Tax Invoice Vide registered post dated 16-7-2018 but complainant has not received any reply from the either party.
6. The conduct of the respondent is highly illegal uncalled unwarranted and against the natural justice.
7. The conduct of the respondent is highly illegal uncalled unwarranted and against the natural justice hence the present compliant is being filed.
8. That being a consumer as per provision of the C.P.Act 1986, the complainant approached this Hon'ble Commission for redressal of her grievance due to deficiency of service on the part of the respondent through this complaint.
9. In view of the fact and circumstances stated herein above it is mostrespectfully prayed that-

- The respondent may kindly be directed to replacement of waterpurifier /removal of defectalongwithRs.50,000/ to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony and pain with Rs. 15,000/ as cost of litigation.

2. Accordingly, on 16/08/2018 after hearing arguments on admission, notice was issued twice returnable on 11/10/2018, but none appeared on behalf of OPs despite service of notice. Even the tracking report of the duly receipt of Notice of the same on 23/10/2018 has been placed on record.

 

3. The OPs were also served through court notice and after that also they didn’t turn up and ignored the court notice. This act of the OPs clearly shows that the OPs are avoiding/disrespecting the court proceedings although they have been duly served.

 

4. In M/s. Madan and Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand AIR 1989 SCC 630, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “That if a registered letter addressed to the person at his residential address does not get served in the normal course and is returned, it can only be attributed to the addressee's conduct. If he is staying away for some time all that he has to do is to leave necessary instructions with the postal authorities either to detain the letters addressed to him for some time until he returns or to forward them to the address where he has gone or to deliver them to some other person authorized by him.” Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Hira Lal &Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 523 has held that notices returned with postal remarks “Not available in the House”, “House Locked” and “Shop Closed", must be deemed that the notices have been served on the OPs. Accordingly, the OP proceeded ex parte on 23-10-2018.

 

5. The complainant filed exparte evidence by way of an affidavit on 25-04-2019 testifying all the facts stated in the complaint along with documents exhibit CW-1/A to CW-1/F affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. The complainant has filed his evidence as CW1/PW1 by way of his affidavit and he has proved the following documents.:

 

1. The copy of the purchaseInvoice dated 27/06/2018
2. Copies of the complaints with postal receipt dated 16.7.2018

 

6. The complainant also filed written submissions on 30-07-2019. Oral arguments were heard on 5/05/2022. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions from the complainant.

 

7. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. The complainant has proved on record the relevant documents in support of its case.

 

8. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the Complainant or the claim of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is within the time limit since the opposite party vide its letter dated 16.07.2018 had made the complaint with regard to the defectsin the said water purifier in question from the complainant and also informed that the OP did not provide service for removal of defects. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and because of the unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of Complainant and the documents proved on record, Complainant is entitled to removal of defects in water purifierbut after a lapse of span of 4 years, we felt that it is not feasible to direct the OP’s to remove the defects. Hence, we direct the op refund the cost of water purifier i.e.Rs 13,290/-.

 

9. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against the OPs and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

[i] To refund Rs 13,290/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety only) to the complainant.

[ii] To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant and his family members;

[iii] To pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

10. Let the order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

11.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.

 

12. File be consigned to record room.

 

13.  Announced on     31/10/2022.

 

 

 

 

Richa Jindal                              Anil Kumar Koushal                   Sonica Mehrotra

 (Member)                                  (Member)                                  (President)