BEFORE THE  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 12^th day of January 2018

                                                                             Filed on : 30.06.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                              President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                            Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                  Member.

                              C.C.No. 255/17

                                    Between

                                               O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant had purchased a Water purifier model Aqua Flo DX manufactured by Eureka Forbes.  At the time of its purchase, the opposite party manufacturer- Eureka Forbes providing AMC service to the water purifier. The complainant and the opposite party entered the AMC service contract and as per the contract the company was supposed to provide free service for the product as and when required. It is also mentioned in the terms and conditions of the AMC contract that a single set of spares would be provided when required free of cost for replacement. But the opposite party had violated the terms of the contract by not providing sufficient service to the complainant when he made a service request on 29.05.2017 to the opposite party. The complainant repeatedly contacted with the opposite party through phone and also sent an email. But the opposite party did not make any response to it.  It is also pertinent to mention that service request  made earlier were met but that too again with inordinate delay and after repeated reminders and requests. One of such requests the Company charged him with cost of service which was supposed to be provided free of cost. It was only when he reminded the terms of contact that the service charge was returned to the complainant. But in the second bill submitted by the complainant that charges for the spares were changed and increased amount for the same set of spares consumed during service were mentioned in the bill.  For the same set of spares two different amounts were produced on two different set of bills.  The act of the opposite party is gross deficiency in service and the complainant had suffered a lot of mental agony, hardships, financial loss….etc. due to their negligent attitude. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the AMC and spare part charges collected to the complainant and also seeking compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite party.  Hence this complaint.

2)       Despite service of notice from this Forum, the opposite party opted not to contest the matter their own reason.  Ex-parte proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant and Ext. A1 to A3 were marked on his side.  Heard the complainant who appeared in person.

3)       Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the refund of AMC and spare parts charges paid by the complainant from the opposite party?
3. Whether the opposite party has liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

4)       Issue No, (i) and (ii)

According to the complainant, he had purchased a water purifier model Aqua Flo DX, which was manufactured and marketed by the opposite party Eureka Forbes.  At the time of its purchase, the opposite party offered AMC service for the disputed water purifier. Lured by the assurance given by the opposite party, the complainant decided to avail AMC service from them. The complainant entered into an AMC contract with the opposite party. But the opposite party violated all the the terms and conditions of the AMC contract. The opposite party did not take the service request of the complainant and illegally charged for service and spare parts of the water purifier. The opposite party denied all the service requests of the complainant and inordinate delay occurred in rectifying the defects of the same.

5)       Exbt. A1 invoice cum receipt dated 22.06.2016 issued by the opposite party shows that the complainant had remitted Rs.1,685/- for AMC service charge to the opposite party for the period from 30.06.2016 to 29.06.2017. Exbt. A2 email communication between the complainant and the opposite party dated on 14.02.2017shows that the complainant had raised the very same issues mentioned in this complaint. Exbt. A3 (1) and (2) shows that the opposite party charged an amount of Rs.975/- on 31.01.2017 and Rs.525/- on 01.02.2017 from the complainant for Dual Cartridge.  In Exbt. A1 terms and condition No. 1 particular “B’ column No. 2 clearly stated that replacement of Dual Cartridge applicable to warranty and will be replaced free of cost.

6)       In this case, the complainant argued that the opposite party denied his service request without any proper justification. The opposite party denied the complainant’s repeated requests and violated all the terms and conditions of the AMC contract and the act of the opposite parties amounted to gross deficiency in service. Again he argued that he has right to get refund the AMC charges and spare parts cost.  He also prayed compensation and costs of the proceedings. At the time of his argument he submitted that his family members and kids had faced lot of difficulties for getting purified drinking water.  The complainant had suffered mental agony, hardship due to the above said reason.

7)       In the absence of the contrary evidence, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable and he is entitled to get refund of the price of the AMC charge and cost of spare parts from the opposite party, which they collected from the complainant as per Exbt. A1 and A3 series.

8)       Issue No. (iii)

Evidently the complainant could not use the water purifier due to the service deficiency on the part of the  opposite party. Naturally he had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships… etc. due to the negligent attitude of the opposite party. We are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the deficient service offered by them. We award an amount of
Rs. 3000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

9)       In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1.  The opposite party shall directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,685/- and  Rs,525/- to the complainant which was collected by the opposite party as per the Exbt.A1 and A3 series from the complainant.
2. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.3000/- towards compensation to the complainant for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs.2000/- towards the costs of the proceedings to the complainant

The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the 31^st day of the receipt of a copy of this order till the date of payment.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of January 2018

                                      Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

                                       Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                                    Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                                        Forwarded by Order

                                                                       Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Opposite party’s Exhibits     ::    Nil

          Date of Despatch:

                             By Post       :        

                             By Hand      :

                                      ………………………