BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 03/12/2012
Date of Order : 31/01/2013
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 753/2012
Between
Harikumar. K., | :: | Complainant |
S/o. Krishna Kaimal. G.K., 48/1550 A, Thattil Cottage, Sangamam Lane, St. Antony's Road, Thannikkal, Elamakkara, Ernakulam – 682 026. |
| (Party-in-person) |
And
1. M/s. Eureka Forbs Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
Rep. by its Managing Director, Bupesh Gupta Bhavan 85, Sayani Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. 2. The Manager, Eureka Forbs Ltd., 32/1787-A5, Corporate Care Division, Edappally, Ernakulam H.O.,Tutus Towers, 4th Floor, NH 47, By-pass Road, Padivattom, Cochin – 24. |
| (Op.pts absent) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The undisputed facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-
On 11-04-2009, the complainant purchased a water purifier from the 2nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 9,590/-. Fascinated by the assurances of the 2nd opposite party, on 02-06-2011 the complainant had taken an annual maintenance contract for a period of 2 years. Within the currency of the annual maintenance contract on several occasions, the complainant booked complaints with the opposite parties to which there was no response. On 28-09-2012, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties demanding either to replace the shoes or to make refund of the price of the shoes. The 2nd opposite party accepted the notice, but there was no response. The complainant had suffered severe mental agony and financial loss due to the conduct of the opposite parties. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to provide service to the complainant by repairing the purifier and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The service of notice of the 1st opposite party has not been completed. In spite of receipt of notice from this Forum, the 2nd opposite party opted to remain absent. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.
3. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the defects of the water purifier rectified?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties?
4. Point No. i. and ii. :- Ext. A1 tax invoice would show that the complainant purchased a water purifier from the 2nd opposite party on 11-04-2009 at a price of Rs. 9,590/-. After the expiry of the normal warranty, the complainant entered into annual maintenance contract with the 2nd opposite party for the period from 03-06-2011 to 12-06-2012 by paying a sum of Rs. 2,525/- evident from Ext. A2 invoice-cum-receipt for service contract. According to the complainant, time and again, the complainant had to approach the opposite parties to get the defects rectified that too within the currency of the AMC period evident from Ext. A3 series e-mails. Since there was no response on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant caused Ext. A4 lawyer notice dated 28-09-2012 to the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party duly received the notice on 01-10-2012 evident from Ext. A5 acknowledgment card. Despite receipt of Ext. A4 lawyer notice and the notice issued from this Forum, the 2nd opposite party did not respond to the same for reasons not stated or explained. The 2nd opposite party is legally and contractually liable to rectify the defects, if any of the water purifier within the AMC period on free of costs, and thereafter, on payment of costs. In the instant case, the 2nd opposite party miserably failed to comply with the terms and conditions in Ext. A2 in spite of receipt of consideration for the same, which amounts not only to unfair trade practice, but also to deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party for which they are answerable. We feel that ends of justice would be met by and award of compensation of Rs. 3,000/- not to mention which includes the costs of the proceedings.
5. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and pass the following order :-
The 2nd opposite party shall take immediate steps to rectify the defects of the water purifier of the complainant free of cost.
The 2nd opposite party shall pay Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12%. p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of January 2013.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the tax invoice dt. 11-04-2009 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of invoice cum receipt No. 19071536 |
“ A3 | :: | E-mails (2 Nos.) |
“ A4 | :: | Copy of the lawyer notice dt.28-09-2012 |
“ A5 | :: | An acknowledgment card |
“ A6 | :: | Postal receipts |
“ A7 | :: | Returned envelope |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
