Petitioner                                              : Joy Markose,

                                                               Padinjattukara House,

                                                               Keezhukunnu,Collectorate PO

                                                                Kottayam.

                                                        Vs.

Opposite party                                     :  1) Eureka Forbes Ltd., Parayil Buidlings,

                                                                    XII/60 A1 First floor, Kalathilpadi,

                                                                    Kottayam-10, Rep. by its Manager.

                                                               2) Eureka Forbes Ltd., D-5 Level 4 Anmol-

                                                                    Palani, 88 G.N. Chetty Road, T-Nagar

                                                                    Chennai-600017, Rep. by its General

                                                                     Manager(Sales) (DELETED)      

                                                               3) Eureka Forbes Ltd., B1-B2 701,

                                                                    Marathon Innova, Opp Ganpatrao-

                                                                    Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-13

                                                                    Rep. by it General Manager(Customer care)

O R D E R

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

            The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:

            The complainant had purchased a water purifier from the 1^st opposite party on 23/7/2010. Because of probable water contamination in municipal water supply the said Eureka Forbes water purifier was installed in the complainant’s residence.  Its serial no. is 6019754 and the invoice no. is 017774 and the cost of the said unit is Rs. 7390/-.  Unfortunately soon after the installation, the system failed to work properly.  The complainant called the 1^st opposite party several times and requested them to rectify the defect.  Even though the 1^st opposite party assured that they will send a technician to the residence of the complainant, nobody under the opposite parties had come or repaired the complaint.  The said unit is having a guarantee of one year from the date of purchase.  According to the complainant the acts of the opposite parties are against public policy and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming to replace the purifier or to refund the cost, compensation Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost Rs.2000/-.

            Notice was served to the opposite parties.  But opposite party 1 and opposite party 3 were called absent and hence set expartee.  The complainant filed IA 754/10 for deleting the 2^nd opposite party from the party array.  The said IA was allowed and the 2^nd opposite party was deleted.

Points for considerations are:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant and Ext.A1.

Point No.1

            The complainant averred that he purchased a water purifier from the 1^st opposite party on 23/7/2010 and the said unit became defective soon after installation.  The complainant produced original invoice dated 23/7/10 for Rs. 7390/- and it is marked as Ext.A1.  Complainant further averred that he called the 1^st opposite party several times and requested them to send a technician to rectify the complaint of the unit.  The complainant next averred that even though the 1^st opposite party assured to send a technician, nothing was done for the rectification.  The complainant alleged that of these acts of the opposite parties show their deficient service and unfair trade methods.  As the opposite parties chose not to contest the averments and allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties remain unchallenged.  In our view the complaint is to be allowed.

Point No.2

In view of the findings in point no.1 the compliant is allowed.  In the result the complaint is ordered as follows.  The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties will jointly and severally replace the defective water purifier with a defect free new water purifier or will refund the purchase price of Rs.7390/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 2000/- and the  litigation cost Rs.1000/-.

 This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2010.

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President  Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of the complainant

Ext.A1-Original invoice dtd 23/7/10 for Rs. 7390/-

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

S/5cs