Delhi

North East

CC/219/2017

Shri D.K. Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Eureka Forbes Limited - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 219/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri D.K. Goel S/o Mr. N.C. Goel R/o C-4/183, First Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd Office 4-A, Hassanpur Vill. IP Extn. Near Shani Mandir, Sai Baba Mandir,             New Delhi-110092.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

06.07.2017 30.07.2019 30.07.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The facts, in brief, in the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased Eureka Forbes Water Purifier Ivory (Purifier) for an amount of Rs. 6,300/- on 25.03.2009 from Satyam Electrical Appliance & Crockery vide bill No. 004229. The said Purifier was installed at the residence of the complainant by OP1 under AMC of its authorized dealer- OP2 w.e.f. 10.04.2015 to 09.04.2017 on payment of Rs. 2,710/- made to OP1. The said Purifier started malfunctioning in the beginning of March 2017 for which the complainant called the representative of OP2 for repairing the same who came after many follow-ups but failed to repair the machine and instead broke its part rendering it dysfunctional. From March 2017 till 3^rd week of April 2017, complainant kept e-mailing and sending Whatsapp messages to the higher authorities of OP1 to get the AMC and service of his Purifier and also complaint about bad behavior and poor service given by OP2 asking for an alternate AMC agency but despite attending to the complaints and making temporary repairs, OPs failed to repair the Purifier or replace it and also failed to render AMC service during the contract period compelling the complainant to purchase a new Aqua Guard on 21.04.2017 for a sum of Rs. 9,490/-. Therefore the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Forum against the OPs praying for issuance of directions to pay the cost of the new Purifier i.e. Rs. 9,490/- and also to refund the AMC charges of Rs. 2,710/- paid by him alongwith Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and torture and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

Complainant has attached copy of purchase invoice of Forbes Ivary Purifier dated 25.09.2009 for Rs. 6,300/-, copy of invoice cum receipt / contract receipt for service contract bearing no. 29867298 dated 09.04.2015 towards AMC valid from 10.04.2015 to 09.04.2017 issued on the letter head of OP1 bearing seal of OP2 with original hologram of OP1, copy of series of e-mails from 01.03.2017 to 20.04.2017 exchanged between complainant and OP1 regarding problems faced in AMC and service and copy of Whatsapp Messages dated 26.02.2017, 12.04.2017 and 15.04.2017 to OP.

2. Notice was issued to OP on 24.07.2017. However due to incorrect address, notices were returned ‘unserved’. On fresh addresses filed by the complainant, notice to OP1 was served on 30.12.2017. No fresh address was available of OP2 despite efforts made by the complainant and therefore on application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by complainant on 02.07.2018, OP2 was deleted from the array of parties. OP1 did not appear after 22.01.2018 on which date one Mr. Rahul Kumar Nigam, Assistant Officer, Customer Service had appeared and was given copy of complaint with annexures to file written statement. It failed to filed its defence within the statutory mandatory period of 45 days under CPA and therefore its defence was struck off vide order dated 04.05.2018 and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.08.2018 for its continued non appearance.
3. Complainant filed an application for amendment of complaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of prayer clause praying for directions to OP to pay Rs. 2,710/- paid towards the AMC alongwith interest thereon @18% p.a. to the complainant, cost of new water Purifier of Rs. 9,490/- alongwith interest @18% p.a., Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 21,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant on 07.09.2018 and 31.10.2018 respectively in reiteration of his grievance against OP1 for having failed to give AMC service with respect to the said Purifier despite having charged for the same and several fervent follow-ups by the complainant from March till April 2017 forcing him to buy a new water Purifier and compelling him to file the present complaint being harassed by OP and dissatisfied with its service which was deficient.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by counsel of complainant and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record.

The OPs did not come forth to put their defence in rebuttal to the allegations leveled by the complainant of failure to provide AMC service with respect to the Forbes water Purifier for which consideration amount was charged for two years from April 2015 to April 2017.

On perusal of the documents placed on record, it is clear that the OP1 had duly extended AMC service to the complainant for a period of two years with its service agency -OP2 from 10.04.2015 to 09.04.2017 for sum of Rs. 2,710/- and when the said Purifier started giving problems in March 2017, despite it being still under AMC contract, OPs failed to address the problem despite the same being its responsibility for which it had charged and had asked the complainant to take AMC at the time of selling the product. The Hon'ble National Commission in Vila India Vs Maratha Mandal Institute of Dental Sciences I (2019) CPJ 462 (NC) noted that when a machine came with an assured AMC as an integral part of purchase, it is a valid and material consideration while selecting a machine and its supplier and the buyer could rightly assume that on purchasing a machine with AMC that he would be secure against post purchase defects and would get prompt and dutiful service at just cost during the AMC period at least.

It was therefore the responsibility of OP to not only depute a properly qualified and skilled service engineer to rectify the defects in the subject water Purifier of the complainant but also to ensure prompt resolution of his problem rather than harassing him for a month as can be made out from the chain of e-mails placed on record. However the OP utterly failed to perform its duty and in our view was deficient in service by not honoring the AMC condition and having failed to redress the problem of the complainant promptly and dutifully despite being contractually bound to do so.

6. We therefore allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the AMC cost of Rs. 2,710/- alongwith interest @9% and pay a sum of Rs. 9,490/- towards the cost of New Water Purifier alongwith interest @6% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.
7. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.       
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on 30.07.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member