Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1128/2014

SH.O.P GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

EURO MAX SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

       CC. No.1128/14:

       In the matter of:
       Sh. O.P. Gupta

       R/o. 107, Karishma Apartments,

       27, I.P.Extension, Delhi – 110 092

     Complainant

Vs

       M/s. Euro Max Services

       B-13, 3^rd Floor, Main Vikas Marg,

       Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 Respondent

                                                      Date of Admission-18/12/2014

                                                      Date of Order         -12/09/2015

ORDER

Poonam Malhotra, Member:

            The present complaint has been filed with the allegation that on 09/02/2014 the respondent visited the resident of the complainant for the service of Ultra Violet Water Purifier installed at his residence. The respondent represented the complainant to switch over to ‘Aqua Fresh’ RO + UV Water Purifier on the basis of catalogue. Lured by it the complainant agreed to buy Super Grand ‘Aqua Fresh’ RO+UV Water Purifier for Rs.7,000/- and paid Rs.6,500/- to the respondent  and Rs.500/- were adjusted towards his old UV Water Purifier. The Water Purifier was delivered and installed at his residence on 10/02/2014 and it was carrying the warranty of one year which was increased by respondent to 1 ½ year by including in it the unexpired portionof the old service contract, one year free service, free standard installation of the Water Purifier was also given by the respondent . it is alleged by the complainant that the respondent  further offered to provide seven years extended service on the said Water Purifier for an additional amount of Rs.2000/-. The same was paid by the complainant and the warranty was thus in all, the complainant paid Rs. 8,500/- to the respondent. The Ultra Violet Water Purifier strespondent ped working within few days of installation and the matter was reported to the respondent. After several reminders the complaint was attended but the Water Purifier was crashed again with the same problem and there was also leakage of water at the joint. Despite reporting the matter to the respondent they did not respond. The complainant demanded refund of Rs.8,500/- as Water Purifier supplied to him is not genuine. It does not carry the name, address and telephone number of the manufacture, it does not reflect the model name and a valid warranty was not given to him. Despite repeated telephonic calls his complaint has been unheard. The police complaint was lodged by the complainant against the respondent on 07/05/2014. Finally the Water Purifier respondent ped working completely in September 2014. The mechanic attended the complaint and repaired it. The written assurance was given to the complainant by the senior representative of the respondent  that the machine would be rendered defect free and in render it in proper working condition and, if need, necessary part will be replaced during the warranty period, seven years extended service charge will be refunded. Despite repeated complaint and a legal notice dated 12/11/2014 the grievance of the complainant cannot redressed till date. The complainant prayed for the refund of Rs.8,500/- with 18% interest, Rs.10,000/- towards the harassment and mental agony, Rs.1000/- per month from April 2014 on wards towards expense incurred on boiling water and purchase of mineral water and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation.

            Notice was served upon the respondent but none put up appearance on its behalf and case proceeded exparte against respondent. No evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant.

            Heard and perused the record.

On admission of a complaint, it is proceeded as per the provisions contained in Section 13 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The proceedings under the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are summary in nature which are decided on the basis of evidence filed by the parties on affidavit.  In the present case the matter has been proceeded exparte against the respondent and the complainant has not filed his affidavit in evidence to reaffirm on oath the allegations made by him against the respondent in his complaint.  As such the allegations made by the complainant in the present complaint being not supported by evidence cannot be believed.  As such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.

 

   (Subhash Gupta)                            (Poonam Malhotra)                                      (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                          Member                                    President