ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 957 of 2009

Eureka Forbes Ltd., A-34, Kailash Colony,

New Delhi.                                                            ...Appellant.

Versus

Mr. Harish Tomar, Adv., 32, Civil Lines,

Mathura U.P.                                                    …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.

Sri B.K. Upadhyay, Advocate for appellant.

Sri O.P. Duvel, Advocate for respondents.

Date 21.12.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member- This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by the ld. District Forum, Mathura in complaint case no.131 of 2008, Harish Tomar vs. Arish Khan & anr., whereby the ld. District Forum by allowing the complaint directed the appellant to pay Rs.60,000.00 to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a.

As per the allegation of the complainants, he purchase one Eureka water filter (RO) from the opposite party no.1 but the RO filter burnt after one week from the date of installation. The complainant requested for replacement of machine but the opposite party replied in negative mentioning that no guarantee was given to the complainant.

Opposite parties failed to submit their reply by the ld. District Forum. The ld. District Forum upon consideration the evidence submitted by the complainant passed the above mentioned order which is challenged by the appellant/ opposite party no.2, Eureka Forbes Ltd. that the opposite party no.1 is not the authorized dealer of the appellant. The complainant purchased a local made RO filter machine and not the machine manufactured by the appellant company.

  We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as record.

(2)

In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant himself mentioned that the RO which was purchased by the complainant was not manufactured by the appellant/ opposite party no.2 Eureka Forbes Ltd. Therefore, appellant is not liable for any fault in the machine purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no.1. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum is liable to be set aside against the appellant only. 

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and  order dated 29.4.2009 passed by the ld. District Forum, Mathura in complaint case no.131 of 2008 is set aside against the appellant. This judgment shall remain in force against the opposite party no.1. 

          The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

        (Vikas Saxena)                                (Sushil Kumar)

              Member                                  Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

        (Vikas Saxena)                                (Sushil Kumar)

              Member                                  Presiding Member

Jafr, PA I

Court 3