BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

22^nd DAY OF JUNE 2016

O R D E R

SMT. P.K SHANTHA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to replace the water purifier or refund the cost of the machine, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards other expenses.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant purchased Aqua Guard Geneus (RO+UV+UF) water filter from OP on 01.07.2015 for Rs.22,490/- with S.No.1227806053002542.  The said filter was delivered by one Naveena.  The said person came from OP Company.  While installing the machine he noticed that, the machine has a problem that cannot be rectified.  Then he suggested to replace the machine by complaining to the Company.  Complainant complained several times, but OP did not rectify the problem.  Complainant issued letter to OP on 06.11.2015 regarding the problem with the machine, but OP did not respond.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for a direction to the OP to replace the water purifier or refund the cost of the machine, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards other expenses.

3. Despite service of notice, OP failed to appear and was placed ex-parte.  Thereafter, the complainant was called upon to file his affidavit evidence.  Accordingly he did so.

4. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, copy of the receipt, sworn testimony of the complainant and other materials placed on record.

5. As claimed by the complainant, he has purchased Aqua Guard Geneus (RO+UV+UF) water filter S.No.1227806053002542, item code GWPDDRGNS00000 from OP on 01.07.2015 for Rs.22,490/-.  The tax invoice has been produced by the complainant to substantiate the same.  One Mr.Naveena came from OP Company to install the machine, but he noticed that the machine has a problem which cannot be rectified by him.  It means that OP Company has sold a defective machine to the complainant.  The said person has suggested to get a replacement by complaining the OP Company.  As per the suggestion, the complainant complained the same to the OP Company several times.  But OP Company did not send any person/technician to rectify the problem.

6. The complainant registered a complaint in internet also.  But OP did not take any action.  Then complainant has sent a letter to OP on 06.11.2015 explaining the problem he is facing with the water filter.  There was no any response from OP side.  This shows the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP. 

7. Due to irresponsible behavior on the part of OP the complainant has suffered great hardship and mental agony.  The conduct of the OP in selling a faulty water purifier amounts to gross negligence and deficiency of service on their part.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to non performance of the promise made by the OP.    We do not find any reason to disbelieve the allegations made by the complainant against OP.  Though the said product is in warranty period and the problem aroused even before the installation, the OP has failed to replace with a brand new water purifier of the same model.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation for the hardship and mental agony suffered by him.  We are satisfied that the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The complainant is entitled for replacement or refund of amount of Rs.22,490/- towards cost of the water purifier with interest.  In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.22,490/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. 

8. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

       O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to refund Rs.22,490/- to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of payment till the date of realization.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

This order is to be complied within 30 days from today.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 22^nd day of June 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT No.227/2016

Complainant                 -        Sri.Rajesh,
                 Anekal-562106.

                                          -vs-

Opposite Party              -        The Manager,

Eureka Forbes Company Ltd.,

Bangalore-10.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 02.06.2016.

1. Sri.Rajesh,

   Witnesses examined on behalf of OP – Nil.

   Documents produced by the OP - Nil

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*