Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/425/2014

Suman Setia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vishal Bali, Adv.

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	425/2014
Date of Institution	:	20.08.2014
Date of Decision	:	30/01/2015

 

                  

                                                                                     

 

Suman Setia s/o Sh.Jatinder Nath Setia r/o H.No.237, Sector 2, Panchkula.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.       M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., through its Branch Manager, SCO No.14, 1^st and 2^nd Floors, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

 

2.       M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., through its Service Manager, H.No.270, Sector 18, Panchkula.

 

3.       M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., through its Managing Director, 252 A, Sant Nagar, above Reliance Fresh, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Vishal Bali, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh.Manoj Kumar Dogra, Authorized Agent for the Opposite Parties

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one water purifier Model  Aquaguard Total Enhance Green R.O. from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.13,490/- vide Invoice dated 11.04.2013, Annexure C-1.  Just after few months of its purchase, it started giving problem and the complainant approached OP No.1 who advised him to contact OP No.2 (Authorized Service Centre).  Accordingly, the complainant got noted the complaint with OP No.2 and on 02.03.2014, the employee/engineer of OP No.2 visited his residence and on checking, it was found that there were cockroaches in the tank of the water purifier. He told the complainant that the cockroaches entered in the water purifier due to some manufacturing defect and in order to remove this defect, he would have to put extra cover on the top of the same and the same would be done within 2-3 days as the same was not available with him.  On 07.03.2014, the extra cover of the water purifier was put by Opposite Party No.2 vide Service Request Activity Report, Annexure C-3.   On 04.05.2014, the complainant again faced the same problem and the same was attended to by Mr.Tirlok who changed the filters of the water purifier vide Service Request Activity Report, Annexure C-4 and charged Rs.4,230/-from the complainant for renewing the service contract, which otherwise he was not entitled to charge as the same was not in a proper working condition and was suffering from the manufacturing defect.  It was further stated that due to defective water purifier supplied by the Opposite Parties, the complainant and his family had been consuming the contaminated water which is bad for health.   It was further stated that the complainant is suffering great hardship since the date of purchase of the water purifier from the Opposite Parties as they had supplied a defective water purifier.  It was further stated that the complainant is regularly asking the Opposite Party No.1 to do something with regard to the defective water purifier but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 30.05.2014 upon the Opposite Parties requesting them to refund the price of the water purifier but  all in vain.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint.
2.           In the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties,   it was stated that the allegations of cockroach etc. were afterthought  as the complainant never complained in writing as required under the terms of warranty before 30.05.2014 when the warranty period of the machine had expired.  It was further stated that first call for free mandatory service during warranty was received from the complainant on 02.03.2014. It was further stated that the write up i.e. “tank main cockroach hai” and signature of the Service Technician of the Company was taken under coercion by the complainant on the Service Request Activity Report, Annexure C-2.   It was further stated that the Service Technician of the Company checked the water purifier and found that the same was in a damaged condition and the damaged lid/cover of the same was changed on 07.03.2014 after great persuasion as he was not allowed to accomplish his job on 03.03.2014. It was further stated that on 04.05.2014, the Service Technician of the Opposite Parties visited the complainant alongwith ICCR Original Copy (invoice cum-receipt) but he snatched the same from the Service Technician and even did not pay AMC charges of Rs.4230/- and which remains unpaid till date.  It was further stated that  the complainant did not disclose any manufacturing defect as the water purifier worked for 11 months till March, 2014 without any problem and no such test report from any laboratory was annexed with the complaint to prove any of the allegations.  According to the Opposite Parties, there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserved to be dismissed.
3.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, authorized agent of the Opposite Parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which the complainant purchased the water purifier in question for Rs.13,500/-. Annexure C-2  is the copy of the Service Request Activity Report in which the Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.2  has specifically stated that the cockroach was found in the tank of the water purifier.  Annexure C-3 is the copy of the Service Request Activity Report, vide which the Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.2 changed the cover/lid of the water purifier.  Annexure C-4 is the copy of the invoice cum-receipt for Rs.4,230/- vide which the service contract of the water purifier was renewed for the period from 04.05.2014 to 03.05.2015. Annexure C-5 is the copy of the legal notice dated 30.05.2014 got served by the complainant upon the Opposite Parties. Annexure C-6 to  C-8 are the copies of the postal receipts whereas Annexure C-9 is the copy of the acknowledgment duly signed by the Opposite Party No.3
6.           The stand of the complainant is that the Opposite Parties have charged a sum of Rs.4,230/- on account of renewal of the service contract from him despite the fact that the water purifier, in question, was suffering from some manufacturing defect but we find no merit in the same because the perusal of the receipt Annexure C-4 itself shows that the complainant was himself signatory to the said receipt and it is not the case of the complainant that his signatures were obtained by the Opposite Parties by use of force, coercion or any pressure etc. Moreover, the complainant has failed to establish on record that the water purifier was suffering from any manufacturing defect by leading any reliable and cogent document evidence, in this regard except the problem of entering of the cockroach after about 11 months of its purchase and the same was promptly attended to and rectified by the Opposite Parties on 07.03.2014 i.e. within 4-5 days from the date of receipt of the same i.e. 02.03.2014.
7.           As regards, the stand of the Opposite Parties is that the write up and signatures of the Service Technician upon Annexure C-2 were taken under coercion by the complainant and said activity report was snatched from the hands of the Service Technician  and  the Opposite Parties were able to complete to the job only on 07.03.2014 is concerned, the same cannot be accepted because no affidavit of the said Service Technician who visited the house of the complainant to check and carry out the necessary repairs of the water purifier has been filed by the Opposite Parties to corroborate the same.
8.           The Opposite Parties further stated that the complainant did not pay Rs.4,230/- towards AMC charges and that he used muscle power and forcibly snatched the ICRR Original Copy (Invoice-cum-Receipt) from the Service Technician and did not pay the AMC charges of Rs.4230/-till date.  We find no force in this submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties in the absence of any affidavit of the concerned Service Technician.  Besides this, the Opposite Parties have failed to place on record any document to show that they had ever made any complaint or initiated any legal action against the complainant, in this regard.    Moreover, the perusal of Invoice-cum-Receipt dated 04.05.2014, Annexure C-4 issued by the Service Technician of the Opposite Parties shows that he received a sum of Rs.4,230/- for one year on account of the service contract amount of the said product.  It was further mentioned in the said Invoice-cum-Receipt that the Service Contract would be valid for the period from 04.05.2014 to 03.05.2015. The said Invoice-cum-Receipt also bears the signatures of the authorized signatory of M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd.  and the complainant.   The complainant has, thus, failed to make out any case of deficiency in service or indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9.            For the reasons recorded, finding the complaint to be devoid to any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the Opposite Parties are bound to carry out the necessary repairs, if any,  in the said water purifier as per the terms and conditions of the service contract, Annexure C-4.
10.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30/01/2015                                                             Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER