Adv.Roy Thomas

S/o. Thomas, Kizhekkebagathu House, Pothanicadu P.O., Kothamangalam

::

Complainant

(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha- 686 661)

And

1

M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited: B1/B2, 701, 7^th Floor, Marathon Innova Marathon Next Gen Off Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013

::

Opposite parties

(absent)

2

M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited 1164-E, Mercy Tower, Kizhavana Road, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi- 36, Rep. by its Manager.

O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

The case of the complainant is as follows:

1) The complainant had purchased Eureka Forbes Aqua guard water purifier from the 2^nd opposite party on 30.08.2015 at a price of Rs. 14,190/-which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and one year warranty was given to the product. The water purifier became defective on the next month of its purchase. Instead of the blue indication light showing safe for drinking water, the green lights showing the warning of unsafe was seen glowing. The matter was brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party and a technician attended the complaint. He replaced the panel circuit board, again the very same problem persisted. Thereafter the board was replaced twice. But the complaint is still persisting and consequently the very purpose of purchasing the water purifier has been defeated. The recurring defects of the water purifier are due to its manufacturing defect. That is why the very same complaint is persisting even after the replacement of the panel circuit board. The complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience. The complainant was denied the enjoyment of water purifying facilities due to the recurring failure of the water purifier. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the price of the aqua guard of Rs. 14190/- along with interest at a rate of 12% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization, to pay compensation for the inconvenience caused to the complainant along with costs. Hence this complaint.

2) Despite the service of notice from this Forum, the opposite parties opted not to contest the matter for their own reasons. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exbt. A1 and A2 series were marked on his side. Heard the learned Counsel for the complainant.

3) Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1 Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of an amount of Rs. 14,190/- being the price of the disputed Eureka Forbes aqua guard along with 12% interest from the date of purchase to till realization?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

4) Issue No. (i)

According to the complainant, he had purchased Eureka Forbes aqua guard from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufacture by the 1^st opposite party and one year warranty was given by them to the product. The above said water purifier became defective within one month from the date of its purchase. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and a technician attended the complaint raised by the complainant. He replaced the panel circuit board and informed him that the defect was cured. But, again it showed the very same problem and the opposite party replaced the board in twice, but the complaint is still persisting. Exbt. A1 series bills dated 28.08.2015 and 30.08.2015 goes to show that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 14190/- towards the price of aqua guard from the 1^st opposite party. Exbt. A2 series job sheets dated 19.12.2015, 09.01.2016, 04.05.2016 and 19.05.2016 go to show that panel circuit board was defunct and it was replaced more than twice. Exbt. 2 series clearly evidence that the disputed water purifier is suffering from inherent defects and the opposite party could not rectify the same. We find that the recurring defects of the water purifier were due to its inherent manufacturing defect. It is understood to all that purified drinking water is essential to every person for their better health. Nowadays, many persons have to rely on water purifier system for getting hygienic water. We have no other source to get clear natural water. In this case, the complainant had faced a lot of issues due to the improper and deficient service of the opposite parties. In the absence of any contrary evidence, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable. Moreover, the complaint stands unchallenged by the opposite parties even after accepting the notice from this Forum. In the circumstances, we find that the opposite parties are liable to replace the disputed water purifier system with a brand new water purifier system. The opposite parties are also liable to give one year fresh warranty for the replaced product.

5) Issue No. (ii)

From the above said complaint and the available evidences produced by the complainant, we understand that the complainant could not use his water purifier even for one month to satisfy his requirements. Moreover, he had suffered lot of inconvenience, mental agony, financial loss etc. due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. At last, he approached this Forum for the redressal of his genuine complaint by spending the valuable time and money which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant. We estimate an amount of Rs. 3000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs of the proceedings which amounts are sufficient to abate the agony of the complainant.

6) In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to replace the disputed Eureka Forbes Aqua guard water purifier system with a new one and also to provide one year fresh warranty to the replaced product.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs. 3000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

3. The above orders shall be complied with, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

    

   7) Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of March 2017.

   Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-Beena Kumari, V.K., Member

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent.

Date of Despatch of this Order ::

By Hand

3. 1. By Post ::

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibit :- Nil

=========