Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/586

Shopkeeper Welfare Association - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Eureka Forbs Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Bhatta

16 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          C.C. No.586 of 26.8.2014

                                                          Date of Decision:16/04/2015

Shopkeeper Welfare Associations, Shaheed Radhey Sham Malhotra Marg, Chowk Division No.3, Chhauri Sarak, Ludhiana through its President Sh.Inderjit Singh Bhatia. 

                                                                                      Complainant

                             Versus

1.M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., Divisional Sales Office: 23, Red Cross Bhawan, The Mall Road, Ludhiana-141001 through its Divisional Manager.

2.M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., Divisional Sales Office: 23, Red Cross Bhawan, The Mall Road, Ludhiana-141001 through its Divisional Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L. Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

 

Present:       Sh.S.S.Bhatia, Adv, for complainant.

                   Sh.Hemant Kumar, Rep. for Ops.

 

                                                ORDER

 

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT.

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Shopkeeper Welfare Assocations, Shaheed Radhey Sham Malhotra Marg, Chowk Division No.3, Chhauri Sarak, Ludhiana through its President Sh.Inderjit Singh Bhatia (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., Divisional Sales Office: 23, Red Cross Bhawan, The Mall Road, Ludhiana, through its Divisional Manager and another (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘OPs’) directing them to replace the filter with new one alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation for facing undue mental harassment, pain and agony by the complainant and litigation expenses and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant association with his joint funds got installed a water cooler and for the purification of the water, the complainant wants to install water filter, as such, the complainant purchased one water filter from the Ops vide bill No.000830 dated 6.9.2013 for Rs.14,000/- and the payment was received by the Ops from the complainant vide receipt No.294 dated 6.9.2013. The water filter was got installed by the complainant association for drinking water of the public, with a motive that the public drink clean and safe water to avoid any health problems. At the time of purchasing the said water filter, the Ops assured the complainant that the Ops will provide two services of the filter free of cost and the said filter is having guarantee period of one year and in case, during the guarantee period, the filter develops any kind of defect, the same will be replaced with a new one without any charges. But after its purchase, Ops did not provide any such free services to the complainant. After the installation of the filter, the complainant noticed that the filter was not functioning properly and when the complainant brought this fact into the notice of the officials of OP1, they assured the complainant that as and when the filter will run, the same will start functioning properly, but to no effect and several complaints were lodged by the complainant. Even the complainant talked with Gurdeep Singh, Head but he did not give any proper response and even the Ops failed to provide two services free of costs to the complainant  and also did not check up the filter and now the filter has stopped functioning since last about two months and the complainant is unable to use the filter and the filter is lying idle. The complainant got served the Ops with registered legal notice dated 1.8.2014 calling upon them to replace the filter with a new one and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. However, despite receiving of the said notice, Ops failed to comply with the same. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Sh.Hemant Kumar, representative was appeared on behalf of the Ops and filed the written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the various material facts. The present complaint is not maintainable under the provision of order VII Rule 11 CPC as the whole of the complaint does not show any cause of action in favour of the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer under clause 2(b), (I & iv), (d) & (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the said water purifier/filter in question was never brought by the complainant and in the absence of the invoice/receipt/proof of purchase, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not filed evidence of purchasing of any product from the answering Ops. The complaint filed by the complainant does not disclose any manufacturing defect and nor any such evidence/report from a laboratory is annexed with the complaint and this shows that there is no deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to seek any relief against the answering Ops. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant never approached the answering Ops company for the purpose of purchasing said water purifier/filter in question, thereby the complainant has not produced invoice/receipt before this Hon’ble Forum as the complainant does not have the invoice/receipt to prove the complainant is a consumer of the answering Ops. Further, it is submitted that the allegations of the complainant are concocted one as the complainant is intentionally defaming the answering Ops company to extort money. At the end, denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect and being false and concocted, answering OPs made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4.                In order to prove the case of complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Inderjit Singh Bhatia, President of Complainant company as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.

5.                On the other hand, Sh.Hemant Kumar, representative for the Ops tendered into evidence his affidavit as EX.RA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the OPs and rebutted the case of the complainant.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and representative for the OPs and have also gone through the documents on file very carefully.

7.                 From the evidence of the complainant as well as documents on record, it is proved that the complainant had purchased one water filter from the Ops vide Bill No.000830 dated 6.9.2013 for Rs.14,000/- which fact is evident from document Ex.C2 and further, it is proved that the water filter in question was got installed by the complainant for drinking water of the public, with a motive that the public will drink clean and safe water to avoid any health problems. Further, it is a proved fact that after the installation of the water filter in question, the complainant had noticed that the filter was not functioning properly and when the complainant had brought this fact into the notice of the officials of OP1, they had assured the complainant that as and when the filter will run, the same will start functioning properly. However, as per the allegations of the complainant that the same was not working properly and several complaints were lodged by the complainant with the Ops and also served a legal notice dated 1.8.2014 Ex.C4 but the Ops failed to check up the water filed and now the filter has stopped functioning since last about two months and the complainant is unable to use the filter and the filter is lying idle.

8.                So, it is proved fact on record that the complainant had purchased the water filter in question from the Ops which was not working properly since the date of its purchase. Though, the complainant has claimed the replacement of the filter with a new one on the ground that the water filter suffers from some manufacturing defect alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/-. However, from the evidence of the complainant, it appears that complainant has failed to adduce any evidence of the expert witness, from which, it could be presumed that the water filter in question suffers from some manufacturing defect. However, it is a well settled principle of law that until and unless, there is no sufficient evidence on record in order to prove the fact qua the product suffers from manufacturing defect, no replacement can be granted to the consumer/purchaser. However, it is the legal obligation of the Ops to provide the better maintenance service to the complainant qua his water filter, in case, their product is not working properly. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the repair/maintenance of the water filter in question from the Ops to his entire satisfaction without any costs.

9.                Sequel to the above discussion, we hereby allow the complaint of the complainant and as a result, direct the OPs to carry out the necessary repair in the water filter in question of the complainant by repairing or replacing the defective parts of the same and make the water filter of the complainant proper functional without any defect upon the entire satisfaction of the complainant without charging any costs and in case, it is found that the water filter of the complainant is not working properly by repairing or replacing the defective parts, in that eventuality, to replace the water filter of the complainant with new one and if the same is not available, to refund the entire costs of the water filter to the complainant. Further, Ops are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 (Babita)                        (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L. Ahuja)

 Member                            Member                       President

Announced in Open Forum

on 16/04/2015

GurpreetSharma