Delhi

StateCommission

A/93/2016

O.P. GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EURO MAX SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

04 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:04.03.2016

Appeal No.93/2016

 

(Arising out of the order dated 12.01.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.1128/14 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-East, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

Sh. O.P. Gupta,

Resident of 107, Karishma Apartments,

27, I.P. Extension,

Delhi-110092.                                                                                   .......................Appellant

 

Versus

 

M/s. Euro Max Services,

B-13, 3^rd Floor, Main Vikas Marg,

Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092.                                                                                ....................Respondent

                                   

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The appellant was complainant before the District Forum.  He is aggrieved vide order dated 12.01.2016 passed by District Forum-East in Complaint Case No.1128/14.  He purchased one Ultra Violet Water Purifier  on 09.02.2014 for Rs.7000/- but he paid Rs.6500/- and Rs.500/- were adjusted towards old UV Water Purifier. He paid additional Rs.2000/- for seven years extended service.  In all, he paid Rs.8500/- to the respondent. The water purifier stopped working within few days from installation. Same was returned to the respondent. The complainant demanded refund of rs.8500/- as the water purifier was not genuine. Same did not carry name, address and telephone number of manufacturer.  It did not reflect the model name and valid warranty was not given to him.  He also claimed interest @18% per annum, Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and mental agony, Rs.1000/- towards expenses incurred on boiling water and purchase of mineral water, Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation.

 

2. The District Forum directed the respondent to pay Rs.15000/- in all which was towards refund of the amount paid by appellant, compensation and costs.

 

3. The appellant has come for enhancement.  We have heard on the stage of admission.

 

4. We are at loss to appreciate how much a purchaser can expect for item worth Rs.6500/-.  He has got double of the sum, still he is not satisfied. Consumer Protection Act is not meant for enriching such greedy persons.

 

5. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.  The appeal fails and is dismissed.

 

6. One copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be sent to the District Forum for information.

 

7. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                     (S. C. Jain)

Member​