DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

CC No: 759/2017

D. No._______________________          Date: __________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. ASHOK KUMAR,

S/o SH. VIKRAM SINGH,

R/o 83-B, CC BLOCK,

SHALIMAR BAGH,

DELHI-110088.  … COMPLAINANT   

Versus

LIVE SAFE H20 SOLUTIONS,

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR,

11/393, LALITA PARK,

LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092.                                  … OPPOSITE PARTY

CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

               SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

                                                            Date of Institution: 12.09.2017   

                                               Date of decision:25.11.2019

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant searched for authorized service agency for Kent Mineral RO (Water Purifier) company on internet and made a

CC No.759/2017                                                                            Page 1 of 6

          telephone call to OP somewhere in the month of June-2016 and OP assured the complainant that OP are authorized service agency for Kent Mineral RO (Water Purifier) company and the complainant requested for service of RO System from OP firm and the same was attended and executed on 28.06.2016 by the technician of OP firm and some parts of the RO System were changed and OP charged an amount of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant. Thereafter, RO System stopped working on 14.09.2016 and the complainant again made a telephonic complaint to OP firm and the technician of OP firm came for repair of the said RO System and persuaded the complainant to enter into annual maintenance/service contract with OP firm and the technician of OP firm change some parts of RO System and charged an amount of Rs.5,500/- against the service contract and the service contract included 4 mandatory service visits, membrane-covered under service, motor/pump-covered under service, electrical parts-covered under service and filters-covered under service. On 21.09.2016, the said RO System again stopped working and the complainant made several calls to OP firm and then only his complaint was attended on 22.09.2016 and some part of RO System was changed and the complainant felt change in the taste of water of the said RO System and made a complaint to OP firm on 02.09.2017 and the complainant was intimated that the service would be done on the next date i.e. 03.09.2017 and the

CC No.759/2017                                                                            Page 2 of 6

          technician of OP came to attend the complaint and informed to the complainant that certain parts including filters and membrane i.e. the vital parts for purification of the RO System need to be changed. When the technician tried to change the said parts with duplicate parts (not genuine parts of Kent RO System company) and the complainant objected for the replacement and the technician asked the complainant to talk to OP firm and the complainant talked to the firm and he was intimated that OP firm would not change the requisite parts but when the complaint insisted that it was included in the service contract then the firm informed that the genuine parts would be replaced the next day i.e. 04.09.2017 but the said parts have not been changed since then despite several telephonic requests for the same to OP firm. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent mail about his grievance on 10^th-12^thSeptember-2017 to OP firm at the given e-mail address on the invoices and the e-mails were returned back and it seems that the e-mail address of OP firm is fake and OP firm did not execute the 4 free mandatory service visits as per the terms of service contract and when the 2 technicians of OP firm visited the premises of the complainant on 22.09.2016, they were drunk but the complaint was not made neither to OP firm nor to the police because the technicians felt sorry for the conduct and OP firm has not been replacing the vital parts mentioned in point no.5 above deliberately

CC No.759/2017                                                                            Page 3 of 6

          and trying to pass the period of service contract which is going to be exhausted on 14.09.2017 and as such there is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to reimburse an amount of Rs.9,500/- against the charges collected by OP firm from the complainant as well as compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and damages and direction to police authorities to lodge an FIR against OP firm for making misrepresentation that it was an authorized service agency for Kent RO System.

3.       Notices to OP was issued through speed post for appearance on 08.12.2017 & 27.03.2018. But none for OP appeared on 08.12.2017, 27.03.2018, 01.06.2018 & 19.09.2018 despite service of notices as per track reports on 28.11.2017 & 12.03.2018 and as such OP has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.09.2018.

4.       In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has placed on record copy of invoice cum receipt no.1971 dated 28.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.4,000/- issued by OP, copy of annual maintenance contract receipt no.1625 dated 15.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,500/- issued by OP, copy of invoice cum receipt no.2654 dated 22.09.2016 about service of RO System issued by OP and copies of e-mail communications between the parties.

CC No.759/2017                                                                            Page 4 of 6

5.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears that even after receiving notices of this case from this forum, OP has kept mum and has not bothered to answer the case of the complainant. It seems that OP has no defence in its favour.

6.       As OP has failed to appear and has not lead any evidence and as such it seems that OP has no genuine defence. Accordingly, OP is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

7.       Accordingly, OP is directed as under: -

i)        To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,500/- being the proportionate annual maintenance charges collected by OP from the complainant.

ii)       To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.

8.       The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply the order within 30 days from the

CC No.759/2017                                                                            Page 5 of 6

          date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9.       Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 25^thday of November, 2019.

  BARIQ AHMED                                 M.K. GUPTA

    (MEMBER)                                     (PRESIDENT)

CC No.759/2017                                                                            Page 6 of 6