Delhi

North East

CC/107/2017

Smt. Reena Dubey - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

30 Jan 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. 107/17

 

In the matter of:

	Smt. Reena Dubey W/o Sh. Hirday Narayan Dubey R/o M-29/A/2, M-Block,Dilshad Garden Near Mrignaini Chowk, Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s Eureka Forbes Limited H.No. 4A, Hasanpur Delhi, I.P. Extension Patparganj Delhi-110092   M/s Eureka forbes Limited B1/B2/, 701,  Marathon Innova, Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.	Opposite Parties

 

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

28.03.2017 30.01.2019 30.01.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts of the case narrated by the complainant in the present complaint are that she had purchased Aqua Guard Magna UV water purifier from OP1 and OP2 on 03.05.2016 vide invoice no. 311/041896. However, the said RO started giving problems from the day of installation i.e. showing green light and water stoppage and despite several complaints lodged by complainant vide complaint no 2000874974, 2000976288 and 2001311011 with OP1 & OP2, its technician failed to rectify the problem and tried hit and trial method by changing most of its parts and also installed one external candle for which the complainant had to pay additional sum of Rs. 1,000/- but the problem remained as it is. The complainant wrote email dated 18.01.2017 to OP for request of change of the RO and letter dated 20.01.2017 to the Customer Service Head of OP2 for replacement of defective RO or refund of its price but the OPs failed to pay heed or take action on such email / letter. Lastly, the complainant feeling aggrieved at the unprofessional approach of the OPs and dereliction of duty was constrained to file the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service which forced her family to drink contaminated water as a result of which her children they suffered from typhoid and prayed for issuance of directions against the OPs to refund the cost of the RO i.e. Rs. 12,990/-, Rs. 1000/- as cost of candle and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental torture and agony Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses incurred on treatment on the children of the complainant suffering from typhoid and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of bill / invoice dated 03.05.2016, copy of email 18.01.2017 along with reply email by OP and complaint letter dated 20.01.2017 to Customer Service Head of OP2 alongwith postal receipt.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 07.04.2017 and despite service effected on OP1 and OP2 on 17.04.2017, none appeared and were therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.07.2017.
3. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant on 01.12.2017 and 30.07.2018  respectively in reiteration of her grievance against the OPs.
4. We have heard the arguments forwarded by the complainant and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record.

To the specific query raised by the Forum regarding absence of any job card for repair of the said RO, the complainant submitted that the repair was done Free of Cost and no bill / job card was issued against the said repair by OPs except Rs 1,000/- charged for the change of candle. In absence of rebuttal by the OPs in view of their willful abstentions from the proceedings in the present complaint and no defence put forth therein, we allow the present complaint on the basis of documents placed by the complainant on record in support of his grievance against OPs for deficiency of service in having sold a defective RO which did not last even a week of its purchase and had to undergo repeated repairs but was still rendered dysfunctional. The liability in such cases of defect of manufacturer and dealer is coextensive as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission in catena of judgments.

5. We therefore, holding OPs guilty for deficiency of service and direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund the cost of RO i.  Rs. 13,990/- (cost of RO and candle) to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation charges. Let the order be complied by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.     
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.
8. Announced on 30.01.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member