BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 271 of 2018
Date of Institution : 31.10.2018
Date of Decision : 28.5.2019.
Bhim & Sons Bazria Proprietor Ram Simran age about 47 years son of Shri Bhagirath, resident of Goshala Road, near Hanuman Mandir, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Harsh Aqua Point Bazria Proprietor Ramesh son of unknown caste Chamar resident of Ravidas Mandir wali Gali, Rania Road, Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL….. …… MEMBER.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Mukesh Arya, Advocate for op.
ORDER
This a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by complainant against the opposite party.
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the proprietor of Bhim and sons on 02.02.2018, the complainant got installed one RO from the op for an amount of Rs.5000/- and at the time of installation of RO the op stated that it is original RO of Kent company. And he also assured that he will be responsible for any defect in the RO. That after 6 months RO became defective. The complainant complained about the defect in the RO to the op but he did not listen him and failed to redress his grievance. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding neither maintainable nor sustainable. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, that the complainant has purchased the R.O. having brand as Aqua Fresh and the facts remains that the said R.O was purchased by the complainant against payment of Rs.5000/- that too after going through the quality of the R.O the op has assured for the service of one year against the said R.O and the fact remains that the op had already provided the services to the complainant and even the op is ready to provide the service to the complainant and remove the defect if any therein the said R.O. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
4. The complainant in order to prove her case has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. He has also tendered documents Ex.CW1 copy of bill, Ex.CW2 copy of service card. On the other hand, op has not lead any evidence to rebut the plea of the complainant.
5. It is proved fact that the complainant has purchased R.O for Rs.5000/- from the op. After 6 of purchase the RO, there were complaints and not working properly and the op assured to replace the same.
6. The perusal of complaint reveals that the complainant has not placed on record any opinion of the expert that the RO of the complainant is suffering from any manufacturing defect which entitles him for the replacement of the RO. But however, it is the legal obligation of the op to provide after sale service. Since, the RO is not working properly as such, the op is legally bound to repair the same and make it defect free without any cost.
7. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to carry out the necessary repair in the RO and make it defect free even by replacing any part of the RO within 15 days from receipt of the RO from the complainant. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.05.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
