DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.685 of 2016 Date of institution: 13.10.2016 Date of decision : 26.10.2017
1. Nitin Nayyar son of Shri Tarsem Nayyar
2. Suman Nayyar wife of Shri Tarsem Nayyar
Both residents of Flat No.504, Block-3M, Maya Garden, Phase-3 Extension VIP Road, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, 140603, Punjab.
……..Complainants
Versus
1. M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Schedule No.42, P-3/C, Muneshwara Layout, Haralukunte, Kudlu, Bangalore 560068.
Also at other addresses:
M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., B1/B2, 701, 7th Floor, Marathon Innova, Marathon Nextgen Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.
M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., SCO 14 (FF), Sector 7C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160019.
M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., SCO 107, 2nd Floor, Phase-10, Mohali, Punjab 160055.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant No.1 in person.
Shri B.S. Bhandari, Business Partner of the OP.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainants Nitin Nayyar and Suman Nayyar have filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainants are son and mother respectively. complainant No.2 has purchased Eureka Forbes AquaGuard Total NF Reviva Water Purifier on 06.02.2010 for Rs.9,990/- through credit card of complainant No.1 from Mohali. Complainant No.1 purchased AMC for two years on 25.12.2014 from the OP by paying Rs.7,430/- through his HDFC Credit Card. The payment was made by complainant No.1 by swiping his card from Chandigarh. As per the service contact, the OP has promised to do regular service in two years, change any faulty part free of costs, change the necessary equipments like Membrane, Cleaners, pipes etc. free of cost as and when required depending upon the condition of the AquaGuard. The service contract was valid upto 24.12.2016. However, the OP is not providing service as even after repeated calls, e-mails, the OP has failed to change the faulty parts. The Membrane, Candles and other parts were due to change on 25.12.2015 but these were changed by the OP in April, 2016 even after regular follow up. Purifier was changed on 24.04.2016 with delay of 4 months. At that time the complainants complained about faulty wire, RO pipes which were totally dirty and not in running condition and about the body of RO which was to be changed as per contract. The OP stated that it will be changed later but till date the OP has failed to change or repair the RO. The complainants have even wrote remarks on the service activity report but the OP has not bothered. On 30.04.2016 and 05.05.2016 complainant has wrote mail to the OP on which it assured that the technician will visit in 2 days and replace the faulty parts but till date nobody visited the complainants. The complainants and their family members are drinking unhealthy water and are facing problems with the RO. Hence, this complaint for direction to the OP to change all faulty water pipes (in and out), wires, socket, tap, body of the RO, cleaners as per requirement and regular service as per contract, refund Rs.7,430/- for non providing the services, to pay Rs.800/- spent by the complainants for getting repaired the Aquaguard from outside vendor; to pay them Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs.
3. The complaint is contested by the OP by filing reply, in which it had raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, the OP has provided all the promised contractual services on 27.12.2014, 17.01.2015, 21.04.2015, 28.09.2015, 11.04.2016 and 24.04.2016 and also changed the consumables under the AMC as per terms of the contract. The OP has always been and is still ready and willing to render free contractual services to the complainants but they are refusing to avail the same and demanding free replacement of the body of the machine which was bought on 06.02.2010 and also free replacement of the tap and wire of the machine which is not covered by the terms of Annual Maintenance Contract. The complainants did not allow Shri Ram Milan, Technician of the company to do regular process of service on 31.05.2016. Even the service center owner Shri B.S. Bhandari himself visited the complainants on 20.08.2016 and 15.12.2016 for mandatory services but the complainants asked to first change the body, pipe and tap of the unit and only after that they would be allowed to continue the service process. The complainants have been refusing the services earlier too by making unreasonable and extra contractual demands. On merits, the OP has pleaded that the delay in service was because of refusal by the complainants. However, as a goodwill gesture the OP has always and is still ready and willing to provide any service. The complainants have not attached any proof that they and their family members are drinking unpurified water. Thus, denying deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, complainant No.1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1 and copies of bill Ex.C-1; invoice of AMC Ex.C-2; statement Ex.C-3; service activity report Ex.C-4; e-mail Ex.C-5 and bill of service tendered from outside Ex.C-6. In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri B.S. Bhandari, its Business Partner Ex.OP-1/1; copies of service history card Ex.OP-1; invoice-cum-receipt Ex.OP-2 and service activity report Ex.OP-3.
5. We have heard complainant No.1 and Shri B.S. Bhandari Business Partner of the OP and have gone through the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainants have purchased AMC for two years from the OP on 25.12.2014. The AMC was to expire on 25.12.2016. The complainant No.1 has argued that the OP has not provided service as per the AMC Ex.C-2. However, this plea of the complainants is not acceptable as the complainants themselves have produced service activity report Ex.C-4 vide which the OP has replaced certain consumables on 24.04.2016 i.e. within the currency of AMC Ex.C-2. The complainants again vide e-mail dated 30.04.2016 sought change of pipes and wires. The OP has duly responded to this e-mail and registered the complaint of the complainants. An e-mail to this effect was sent by the OP to the complainant on 05.05.2016. The OP has taken a stand in the reply that it has provided promised contractual services on 27.12.2014, 17.01.2015, 21.04.2015, 28.09.2015, 11.04.2016 and 24.04.2016. Thereafter, the complainants have refused to regular service demanding free replacement of the body of the machine. To prove this fact, the OP has produced History Card Ex.OP-1 which shows that the complainants have refused service on 05.05.2016, 20.08.2016 and last service on 15.12.2016. The purifier was purchased by the complainants on 06.02.2010 vide Ex.C-1. They have entered into AMC with the OP for service purposes only on 25.12.2014 for a period of two years. The authorised representative of the OP has contended that there is no condition in the service contract under which the body of the machine is to be replaced. The OP has undertaken in the written statement that it is still ready and willing to provide services to the complainant provided the OP is allowed to do so by the complainants. Since the OP showed its willingness to provide the service to the complainants and the demand of body change is beyond the terms and conditions of the AMC, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
6. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 26.10.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
