Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Jagdish Kumar has brought the instant complaint under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant has purchased a new Eureka Forbes water purifier from opposite party No.1 . Copy of contract receipt No. 18072729 dated 30.9.2010 is attached. The opposite parties have contract with the complainant for the service of Eureka Forbes Water Purifier for the year i.e. 30.9.2010 to 29.9.2011  and the payment of this effect to the tune of Rs. 1050/- was paid vide receipt dated 30.9.2010. After the expiry of the service contract, the complainant renewed the contract for two years i.e. 7.10.2011 to 6.10.2013 by payment premium of Rs. 2950/-  vide receipt No. 18567972. Again the complainant has renewed the service contract for three years i.e. 4.10.2013 to 4.10.2016 by making payment of Rs. 3875/- vide receipt No. 22585118. Copies of contract receipts are attached.   Opposite party No.2 has been regularly serviced the abovesaid water purifier for the first three years. But after the three years  of the purchase, the opposite parties have not serviced the abovesaid water purifier. When few days ago the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for the service of the water purifier, opposite party did not give any positive response and rather misbehaved with the complainant. Opposite party No.1 openly declared that abovesaid water purifier will not be serviced. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant has sought that opposite parties be directed to service the water purifier for the next three years and to return the amount with interest. Compensation of Rs. 10000/- may also be awarded to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.       Opposite parties did not put in appearance despite service, as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

3.       In his bid to prove the case complainant has tendered into his ex-parte evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of invoice cum receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.

4.       We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

5.       From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the opposite parties entered into a contract with the complainant for service of Eureka Forbes Water Purifier for the year 30.9.2010 to 29.9.2011 on payment of Rs. 1050/- vide receipt No. 18072729 dated 30.9.2010. After the expiry of the service contract, complainant renewed the contract  for two years w.e.f. 7.10.2011 to 6.10.2013 on payment of Rs. 2950/- vide receipt No. 18567972. Again complainant renewed the service contract  for further three years w.e.f. 4.10.2013 to 4.10.2016 on payment of Rs. 3875/- vide receipt No. 22585118. Copies whereof account for Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4. It is the case of the complainant that except for the service w.e.f. 30.9.2010 to 29.9.2011, the opposite parties have failed to provide any regular service to the complainant for the maintenance of the Eureka Forbes Water Purifier  of the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite parties many a times for the service of the water purifier. But, however, respondent No.1  has not given any positive response to him . Rather opposite party No.1 openly declared that water purifier will not be serviced. As per the terms and conditions of the contract agreement, Eureka Forbes Ltd had undertaken to maintain the product used at the address mentioned above. This  contract provides for free replacement of consumables and periodical service to the product as follows:-

6.       The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as opposite parties, despite service, did not opt to appear and contest the claim. The very fact that opposite parties have not put in appearance for contesting the claim, goes to show that opposite parties have impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant. Even otherwise also there is evidence on record to suggest that opposite parties have never provided service of  Eureka Forbes Water Purifier belonging to the complainant during the period in dispute.

7.       From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the opposite parties did not provide any service or maintenance to the water purifier of the complainant w.e.f. 4.10.2013 to 4.10.2016 for which they had obtained Rs. 3875/- vide Ex.C-4 from the complainant, which the opposite parties  are under legal obligation to refund the same to the complainant. However, claim of refund for remaining service charges  is hit by limitation & the same stands declined.

8.       Since the opposite parties are deficient in service , therefore, complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.2000/-  on account of compensation besides litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of order ; failing which awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final recovery. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 06.09.2016

/R/