Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/171/2017

Jagbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Aqua Point - Opp.Party(s)

Dariya Singh

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.    171 of 2017

                                                DATE OF INSTITUTION: -              06.12.2017

                                                            DATE OF ORDER: -                         12.09.2023

 

Jagbir Singh aged about 58 years son of Shri Karta Ram, resident of H. No.258, ward no. 1, Friends Colony, Bhiwani.

 

    ……………Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1. M/s Shree Aqua Point, Shop No. 2, Improvement Trust Market, Bhiwani through its Proprietor/partner/authorized signatory.
2. Bureka Forbes Limited, B1/22, 701, 7^th floor, Marathon Innova Marathon Nest Gen, Off Ganapatro Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013, through its MD/Manager/Authorized signatory.

………….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

 

BEFORE:      Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Sh. D.M. Yadav, Member

 

 

Present:-      Sh. Dariya Singh, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh. CS Dahiya, Advocate for OP no. 1.

          OP no. 2 exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that he had purchased an Aqua-guard RO system, Model Magna RO Pre Filter, Unit Sr. No. 8000650 from the OP no. 1 vide invoice no. 1122 dated 5.4.2016 amounting to Rs.14,500/- as Annexure C-1 with one year full warranty and the same was installed by the employees of the OPs.   As per warranty, if the aforesaid RO has got defect during the warranty period, the then OPs will bound to replace the same.  It is alleged that after some time of purchase of the aforesaid RO, the same got defective and was not working/functioning properly.  The complainant visited at the shop of OP no. 1 and told about the problem.  Then, the OP no. 1 sent his employee and employee of the OP no. 1 had checked the RO and after checking they removed the RO from his house and said that there is some manufacturing defect and sent it to the OP no. 2.  On the request of the complainant, the OP no. 1 provided another RO for temporary basis, but the said RO is also not working.  The complainant again visited in the shop of the OP no. 1 and requested him to install another RO of  good condition but the OP no. 1 in spite of providing him better service, became annoyed and started to quarrel with the complainant and threatened him.  The complainant made several requests to the OP no. 1 but to no avail.    The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents he has to suffer harassment, humiliation and mental agony.  Therefore, he prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be allowed the OPs be directed to pay the following

i           Rs.14,500/- price of the RO.

ii          Interest on the claim amount at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of purchase till the date of actual realization.

iii         Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of mental and physical agonies.

iv         Rs.11,000 (eleven thousand only) expenditure of complainant and counsel fee.

Hence this complaint.

2.                     On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant always misbehaved with the workers of OP no. 1.  It is submitted that the OP no. 1 used to attend the complaint without any delay to remove the complaint.  Moreover, the OP no. 2 is liable for the aqua and not the OP no. 1 and the OP no. 1 is agent of OP no. 2 only to repair the aqua on complaint, which he has done.  It is further submitted that the complaint of the complainant was attended every time and on his complaint new aqua was installed in the house of the petitioner and now he has been using both the aquas.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3.                     No  one has appeared on behalf of OP no. 2.  Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.4.2018.

4.                     To prove its complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence documents  Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.    Counsel for the OP no.1 has not produced any evidence on his behalf.

5.                     We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record thoroughly and carefully.  The grievance of the complainant is that he has purchased the RO on 5.4.2016 and after some time, the defects have developed in the aforesaid RO and the complainant approached the OP no. 1 but the OP no. 1 did not remove the defect.  The OP no. 1 provided another RO for temporary basis, but the said RO  is also not working.  The grievance of the OP no. 1 is that complaint of the complainant was attended every time and on his complaint new aqua was installed.  In our view, it was the duty of the OPs to repair the RO of the complainant but he has not remove the same and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

6.                     With these observations and findings, the present complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed and direct the OPs to pay the cost of Aqua-guard RO system  i.e. Rs.14,500/- (Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 06.12.2017 till its realization and shall also pay  a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.

                     Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: - 12.09.2023

 

 (D.M.Yadav)             (Saroj Bala Bohra)               

   Member.                 Presiding Member,

                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                               Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh. Dariya Singh, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh. CS Dahiya, Advocate for OP no. 1.

          OP no. 2 exparte.

 

                    Arguments heard.  Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

                   

Dt:12.09.2023         Member.                    Presiding Member,

                                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.