- Vicom Security Pvt. Ltd.,
8, Justice K M Yusuf Sarani,
2nd Floor, P.S. Karaya, Kolkata-17. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- ION Exchange (India) Ltd.,
ION House, Plot no.2, Sec-18,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400705 and
New Alipore Market Complex, Block-M,
Phase 1, 5th Floor, New Alipore, Kolkata-53. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 12 Dated 22-08-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased two number of R/O water filter machine from o.p. and installed one at 8, Justice K M Yusuf Sarani, Kolkata-17 and other at residence of Director Sri R. C. Bhutoria at 15B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Mousumi Apartment Flat 7A4, Lp;lata-19 and since installation, both are under warranty and annual maintenance contract of the o.p.
In terms of the service contract, o.p. is under obligation for maintenance and services regularly at periodical interval and upon call when the machine is not working properly and output of water is not well purified for purpose of drinking at office and residence.
In terms of the service contract, o.p. is under obligation to change pumps and candles at periodical interval and for which cost of the parts is included with service as explained by o.p. while entering contract and taken full payment in advance on behalf of o.p.
On or about 30.11.09 o.p. wrongly charged for parts from the complainant Rs.2697/- and collected from the complainant though the cost from said part is covered under maintenance contract and the complainant is entitled to get refund back with interest thereon.
O.p. failed to provide the complainant details of service attended and parts replace with proper evidence to understand performance of o.p. during service period. Copies of e-mail dt.25.1.13, 29.1.13, 31.1.13, 4.2.13 and regd. letter dt.18.2.13.
O.p. failed to make response of the complainant on call and periodically attendance including change of parts and did not provide such services in time and always taken considerable time on ground of non availability of required parts for replacement and other grounds and denied service during contract period.
Sole o.p. did not contest the case by filing w/v and accordingly the matter was heard ex parte against the o.p.
Decision with reasons:
From the record we find that complainant purchased two R.O. water filter machine from o.p. and in terms of service contract o.p. did not perform their duties properly and did not abide by the contract even after taking full payment in advance by o.p. O.p. failed to make responsible to the call of the complainant at the time of attending the calls and change of parts and did not provide service satisfactorily.
In view of the above, we find that complainant has been able to prove his case and is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. O.ps. are jointly & severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only in total for the negligent act and for compensation for harassment and mental agony and is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
