Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/883/2009

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Parima, - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2010

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMPLOT NO. 5-B, SECTOR 19-B, MADHYA MARG, CHANDIGARH-160019 Phone No. 0172-2700179
CONSUMER CASE NO. 883 of 2009
1. Jasbir SinghS/o Late Sh. Harnam Singh, R/o # 366, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/s Parima, through Proprietor, Booth No. 114, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 08 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

PRESENT:      Complainant in person.

OP Exparte.

                            ---

 

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          Sh.Jasbir Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed  to :-

i)              To take back RO Water Purifier(Aquafresh)

ii)         To refund Rs.4800/- being the price of RO Water Purifier(Aquafresh).

iii)    To reinstall the old water puffier of Novec Brand removed under exchange scheme

iv)         To pay a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

2.        In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a RO Water Purifier (Aquafresh) on 12.02.2009 under the Exchange Scheme from OP for a sum of Rs.4800/- which was covered under warranty of one year and Life Time free service. At the time of installation of the said RO System, the existing water purifier (Nuvec) was removed by representative of OP and carried away with him. According to the complainant, the said RO system stopped working within a week as it was not drawing water. The complainant made repeated complaints on phone No.5163093 as well as visits to OP but to no avail. On 28.03.2009, one Mr.Deepak from OP visited the premises of the complainant and checked the RO System but he failed to repair the same and stated that membrane inside the system needs to be replaced.  Thereafter, the complainant made repeated requests to OP for replacement of the part but to no avail.  Mr.Navin told the complainant that the said part is out of stock and the same would be replaced within a day or two on receipt of the same.  Ultimately, the complainant got served OP with a legal notice dated 06.04.2009 but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.        OP refused to accept the summons. As refusal is a good service, therefore, OP was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.01.2010.

4.        We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

5.        The complainant has filed his affidavit wherein he has deposed that he had purchased a new RO Water Purifier (Aquafresh) on 12.02.2009 under the Exchange Scheme from OP for a sum of Rs.4800/- which was covered under warranty of one year and Life Time free service. The deposition to this effect stands corroborated from the bill(Annexure C-2). It has further been deposed by the complainant that the existing water purifier (Nuvec) was removed from his premises by the representative of OP and was taken away by him under the said scheme. It has further been deposed that within a week the RO Water Purifier (Aquafresh) stopped working as it failed to draw the water. Despite repeated requests, OP failed to repair the same. One of the mechanics who visited the house of the complainant noticed that membrane inside the system needs replacement. However, despite several requests having been made, OP has failed to replace the membrane and to make the RO Water Purifier (Aquafresh) functional. So ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice which too was of no effect. There is no rebuttal of the facts mentioned above.

6.        Thus, from the evidence on record, it has duly proved that the RO Water Purifier (Aquafresh) which was installed by OP at the premises of the complainant became defective within a week of its installation. Despite the fact that there was warranty of one year, OP has failed to replace the same with a new one or to replace the same. Failure on the part of OP to make the RO Water Purifier (Aquafresh) functional or replace the same with a new one (if it is not repairable) amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.        In view of the above facts, the present complaint is allowed with a direction to OP to refund a sum of Rs.4800/- being the price of RO Water Purifier (Aquafresh) to the complainant and to reinstall the old water purifier (Nuvec) at the premises of the complainant. The complainant is also directed to return the RO Water Purifier (Aquafresh) on receipt of Rs.4800/- from OP. OP is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

8.        This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to refund the amount of Rs.8800/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 % p.a. from filing of the complaint i.e.       25.06.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation.

9.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08.02.2010

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

cm

 

 

sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

 

 


MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBERHONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT ,