Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/850/2021

Colonel Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Eureka Forbes Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Anil Kumar Ahuja

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	850/2021
Date of Institution	:	25.11.2021
Date of Decision	:	12.04.2023

 

                   

           

 

Colonel Gurpreet Singh (Retd.), aged 70 years, son of Late Dr. Harbhajan Singh and resident of House No. 1518, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh

 ...Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Eureka Forbes Limited, Corporate Office at B1/B2, 701, 7th Floor, Marathon Innova, Marathon Nextgen, Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai -400013, Maharashtra.

2. Eureka Forbes Limited, S.C.F. No. 11, 3 B II, 2nd Floor, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, through its Officer in Charge.

    (Deleted vide order dated 12.09.2022).

3.  Eureka Forbes limited, S.C.O. No. 14, 1" Floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

....Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER
Present:-	Sh.Samrat Ahuja, Counsel of complainant along with complainant OPs No.1 & 3 exparte. OP No.2 deleted.

 

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 34(2) read with Section 35(1)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as amended up-to-date alleging therein that 04.01.2020 he purcahsed (1) Aquasoft 2000 Water Conditioner (GWPDFCOND20000) at the cost of Rs.44,375/- and its installation accessories being (ii) 20" BB WOUND PP 5M-SWPB5P20 1140 (GWPMJUMB000600) for Rs.412.22 P. and (iii) 20" BB BLUE PP Cartridge Housing 1400 (GWPMJUMB000571) at Rs.595.15 P. vide Invoice No. 263260010554 and Delivery Challan No.6051621199, both dated 04.01.2020, for installation of the said unit at the Complainant's Summer House in Village Kothar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. In total, he spent Rs.45382.37P. included free product installation for its full functionality to his satisfaction. Besides he also incurred expenses of Rs.8,500/- towards cost of plumbing material and plumber charges for making provisions for Installation of the said Water Conditioner. To demonstrate its operational functionality after its installation, Mr. Manoj Kumar used a TDS meter despite his query as to the need for use of TDS meter for determining the water softness. Further while restoring the water softening agent, the team of the OPs turned on all taps of the Installation to show the flow of water despite the his objection, while referring to Instructions booklet supplied along with the said appliance, that as per the instructions In User Booklet of the Water conditioner.  After such installation, as and when he visited his house, each time he found that the said Auqa-soft Water Conditioner was non-functional and non-operative, and he complained to said Mr. Manoj Kumar, who evaded the issue on one pretext or the other giving false assurances to look into the matter and finally informed the complainant that he had left the job.   Subsequently the machine in question was checked in the first week of December, 2020 by the team sent by OP No.3 who admitted that the same was not working as it has not been properly installed.  The complainant was offered option for making the same functional at his own cost.  On refusal of the OPs to make the machine functional, the complainant finally sent e-mail dated 11.12.2020  (Annexure C-2) to Abhishek Rana, SBU Head of OP No.3 to the refund entire cost of the machine and its installation accessories.  In reply to the said complaint, he was informed by Mr.Nitin Rana vide e-mail dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure C-3)  to extend the warranty of the machine on FOC Basis costing Rs.12,000/- but the resolution of the complainant was at his own cost. The said proposal was rejected by the complainant vide e-mail dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure C-4). Subsequently, Mr.Nitin Rana offered reinstallation of the machine on 50% cost sharing basis and the said offer was also rejected vide e-mail dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure C-5) and the complainant stressed for reimbursement of the costs incurred by him.  It has been alleged that the OPs did not honour the original AMC came with the machine and no one attended the complaints till December, 2020.  The complainant again sent an email dated 01.02.2021(Annexure C-6) to the Ops and in reply to the same, Mr.Nitin Rana telephonically informed the complainant on 17.02.2021  that the OPs had agreed to refund the entire cost of the machine but he did not send any e-mail to this effect to the complainant despite his request vide e-mail dated 17.02.2021(Annexure C-7).  Finally, he received an e-mail dated 18.02.2021(Annexure C-8) that the request for return of the unit was processed and final decision of the OPs was to take next 5-6 days. Vide e-mail dated 19.02.2021(Annexure C-9), the complainant demanded reimbursement of plumbing charges of Rs.8500/-, followed by reminder dated 29.03.2021 (Annexure C-10).  Finally, the complainant served a legal notice (Annexure C-11) upon the OPs but to no effect.  It is further alleged that vide email dated 19.04.2021 (Annexure C-12), the OPs informed that they have approved the refund of the machine in question and asked for cancelled cheque and invoice.  Subsequently, the complainant through his advocate sent an email dated 08.05.2021 (Annexure C-13) to the OPs requesting them to refund the cost of the machine along with the payment of plumbing charges, interest and compensation etc. According to the complainant, the OPs sent reply dated 24.05.2021 to the legal notice (Annexure C-14) in a vague and evasive manner.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund Rs.45,382.37 P. as the cost of a defective Water Conditioner machine and its accessories along with Rs.8,500.00 as plumbing charges for installation of the machine with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     Despite due service through registered post, OPs No.1 and 3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.06.2022.
3.     The complainant filed his affidavit and documents in support of his case.
4.     We have heard the Counsel for the complainant as well as complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.     As the complainant has availed the services of the OPs for consideration for the purchase of the water conditioner along with its accessories, so it can safely be held that he is a consumer of the OPs as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Further the complainant is resident of Chandigarh so this Commission has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. As the complainant paid Rs.45,382.37P to the OPs, therefore, this Commission has got the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint. The complainant has filed his detailed affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint along with supporting documents (Annexures C-1 to C-14) in the forms of the emails exchanged with the OPs and a copy of the legal notice served upon the OPs in respect of the water conditioner in question which started giving problems after its purchase and requested the OPs to refund its cost along with the value of the accessories and the plumbing charges etc. The OPs did not bother to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant despite the fact that the product in question was not functioning properly.
6.     From the contents of the complaint, it seems that the complainant is more inclined towards replacement of the product than its repairs.   In our considered view, if the defect(s) can be set right by repair/replacement of part(s), there is no need to replace the product as a whole. 
7.     Moreover, the Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them. Non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & un-controverted.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed to:-

1.     To repair the product in question, free of cost, failing which the OPs shall refund the invoice price of the product along with its accessories i.e. Rs.45,382/- to the complainant. Thereafter, the OPs shall be entitled to get back the machine along with its accessories from the complainant.
2.     pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension and physical harassment.
3. pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.

9.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
10.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
11.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 12/04/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(S.K.SARDANA) MEMBER