CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                           GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 09.09.2016

Complaint Case. No.601/16                                          Date of order:      23.07.2018

IN  MATTER OF

Sh. L.S. Yadav S/O Late Sh. R.S. Yadav, R/O 34/1D, Rail Vihar, Sector-56, Gurgaon                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Complainant

VERSUS

M/S KEMFLO Pvt. Ltd., WZ-1198, Nangal Raya, D-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110046                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Opposite party

ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

                        Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant took AMC for R.O. water Purifier on 20.09.2010 by paying premium of Rs. 3,600/- for one year from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2011. Again the AMC was renewed for period 19.09.2011 to 18.09.2013 for two year by paying an amount of Rs. 5000/- and further got renewed for another two years for period 19.09.2015 to 18.09.2017 by paying an amount of Rs. 5000/-. The RO Water Purifier suddenly developed fault and stopped working on 25.06.2016. The complainant called the opposite party at customer care numbers. But the complaint could not lodged as all phones were out of order. Then he called Service Engineer of the opposite party Mr. Gaurav on his mobile who gave emergency helpline number 7503409264. Then the complainant lodged the complaint with the emergency helpline number and the opposite party assured to rectify the RO water Purifier within 24 hours. However nobody came to rectify the problem. Again on 26.06.2016 the complainant called the opposite party whereby they assured that the Engineer will visit on Monday as 26.06.2016 being Sunday. Despite assurance the opposite party failed to send the Engineer. Again the complainant on 27.06.2016 reminded the opposite party but they made false assurance and the opposite party failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. After waiting till 28.06.2016 the complainant contacted another company Kent Ro system Ltd. to repair the RO water purifier. The company charged Rs. 7,900/- for repair and the company also told the complainant that the opposite party has installed duplicate parts due to which the water purifier has stopped working. The complainant through several emails to the opposite party communicated that they failed to provide services and due to their negligence he has suffered mental, agony and harassment and he served legal notice demanding Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony and payment made to Kent Ro system. But the opposite party failed to redress the grievance of complaint and adopted unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service.

Hence   the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to pay Rs. 55000/- and compensation of Rs. 30,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party. But none appeared on their behalf. Therefore, the opposite party was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.05.2017.

When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence he tendered his affidavit dated 02.11.2017 and relied upon receipts dated 29.07.2015 and 29.06.2016, emails and legal notice dated 01.07.2016. He once again narrated the facts of the complaint in the affidavit and deposed that he took AMC for R.O. water Purifier from the opposite party by paying premium amount and RO developed fault on 25.06.2016 within AMC.  But the opposite party failed to rectify the Ro and kept on giving false assurances. They adopted unfair trade practice  and  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The controversy involved in present complaint is that water purifier was covered under AMC given by the opposite party and they failed to provide services. The facts have been sworn by complainant on oath by way of affidavit which have gone unchallenged and unrebutted by the opposite party as it chose not to appear in court despite service. Though the complainant failed to mention the complaint number lodged with the opposite party but his version is substantiated by the documents. Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve the contents of complaint.  We are of considered view that the complainant has already availed services of OP under AMC from 19/09/2015 to 25/06/2017 i. e. 645 days period, tphe complainant also relied on Exh C-2 wherein he paid Rs. 7900/- to another company for repair of RO in dispute. But this document is not trustworthy as there is over-writing on amount of Rs. 5,900/- for spare parts and moreover there is not explanation of what spare parts are used.     

 Hence the complaint partly succeeds. Therefore, we direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 2.500/- towards AMC charges and Rs.2,000/- paid by complainant to Kent R.O. and to further pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for mental harassment agony and pain.  

Order pronounced on :.

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                              (K.S. MOHI)                       MEMBER                                                                                                         PRESIDENT