BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 16^th July 2015

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.:104/2015    

Complainant/s:

Maqsud Ahmed G.Maniyar, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Ramanagar, 4^th Cross, Dharwad 580001.

(By Sri.K.V.Badiger, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. Harsha, Oswal Tower, Jubilee Circle, Dharwad 580001.

2. Eureka Forbes, 1^st floor, Vijaya Building, Old Income Tax Office, Vidyanagar, Hubli 580021. R/by its Manager.

(By Sri.S.D.Kulkarni, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to refund Rs.7599/- towards cost of the water purified with interest @ 15% from 28.02.2014, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and to pay the cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant on 28.02.2014 approached the respondent.1 and purchased water purifier manufactured by the respondent.2 paying Rs.7599/- under invoice no.CD10464 of respondent.1. After installation of the said water purified did not work as specified and was suffering from defect of low flow of water, as such the complainant immediately on 30.12.2014 handed over the unit for repair with the respondent.1, but the respondent.1 did not set right the same nor delivered the same. Hence, issued notice to the respondents on 13.02.2014 calling upon the respondent to refund the amount. Despite service of the notice the respondent did not replied nor complied. Thereby the respondents have committed deficiency in service and also have played unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared. Respondent.2 filed the written version in detail while the respondent.1 adopts the same. The respondents contended that the complaint as brought is not maintainable for the reason the complainant approached this Forum without any expert opinion with regard to the defective product and also with regard to the manufactural defects. The complaint is brought on assumption and presumption at the imagination of the complainant and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the respondent taken contention that since the unit is not suffering from any manufactural defects the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service as there is no cause of action for the instant complaint, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

 Both have admits sworn to evidence. Complainant relied on documents.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively 
2. Accordingly  
3. As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

5.     On perusal of the job cards Ex.C3 reveals that the respondents have noted the complaint of the complainant on 30.12.2014 with a description low water flow. On perusal of Ex.C1 invoice disclose that the complainant had purchased the unit for Rs.7599/- on 28.02.2014. Job Card Ex.C3 dtd.30.12.2014. Ex.C2 booklet pertaining to the device under the head terms of warranty reveals the said unit is having 12 months warranty period subject to terms and conditions. By looking into the job cards Ex.C3 it is not comingforth for what reason low water is flowing. No reason is sought out i.e. whether it is due to water problem or due to manufactural defects. Added to it, the respondent has taken specific contention that the complainant has not produced any expert opinion with regard to establish manufactural defects. When the complainant has approached this Forum with a allegation of malfunctioning of the device the burden lies on complainant to establish his case but not proved with cogent and appulsive evidence. By this it cannot be in a straight jacket denied there is no problem in the unit. But for what reason the problem is shot out is not comingforth. Under those circumstances if it is ordered and directed the respondent to attend the same and to ordered to rectify the defects and set right it will suffice the purpose. As per complainant the unit is with the respondents at present but no record is produced. If  in case the unit is within the position of the complainant, the complainant to approach respondent immediately under the valid acknowledgement and the respondent to attend the same immediately. Since Ex.C3 reveals the problem the complainant is entitled for the reliefs.

6.     In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2  in affirmative and accordingly.

7.     Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

        Complaint is partly allowed. The complainant is directed to approach the respondent and to obtain acknowledgement for approach. Under those circumstances the respondent to undertake repair works in a speedier manner and to set right the same free of charges and to deliver the same along with Rs.500/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure to attend the repair and set right the defects even after the complainant approached respondent under valid acknowledgement the respondent shall refund the value of the purifier with interest @9% P.A. thereon along with costs.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 16^th day of July 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR