| Complaint Case No. 45/2015 | | ( Date of Filing : 28 Apr 2015 ) |
| | | | 1. Sri.Abinash Pradhan,S/O-Bishnu Charan Pradhan. | | at.Block Colony,DNK,Malkangiri,Odisha. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. M/S.Clean World, | | jeypore,Dist-Koraput,Odisha. | | 2. Managing Director, Eureka Forbes Ltd. | | B1/B2, 701, Marathan Next Gen, Innvo, Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel -400013 | | Mumbai |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | - The fact of the case of complainant is that on 20.06.2014 the O.Ps have supplied Euroclean Aquaguard to him on payment of Rs. 9,990/- alongwith warranty for one year and installed the same at his residence. The allegations of Complainant is that within one month said aquaguard went out of order and failed to perform its work and repeated approaches to O.P. No.1, the O.Ps did not respond his approaches and till today the said aquaguard machine is not functioning.Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps for replacement of aquaguard or of its cost alongwith 18% interest and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to him.
- On the other hand, after receiving the notice from this Fora, O.Ps have appeared and filed their joint counter denying all the allegations of Complainant stated that earlier as per the complaint of Complainant, already they have replaced the Aquaguard with a lower range of model for Rs. 9,990/- and refunded the balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- which he was acknowledged without any hesitation. They have also contended that as per further complaint of Complainant, they sent their technicians to the residence of Complainant, but the Complainant did not allow the technicians to repair the alleged aquaguard, rather he threatened the technicians by means of filing of the present case, as such denying their liability for any deficiency in service, the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case against them.
- Complainant has filed certain documents like retail invoice vide bill no. 2126 dated 20.06.2014 issued by the O.Ps alongwith warranty certificate, on the other hand, the O.Ps did not choose to file any documents. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs at length and perused the materials available on record.
- In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant has purchased one Euroclean Aquaguard machine from the O.Ps for consideration of Rs 15,300/- which was subsequently replaced with another one due to its defects under warranty with a lower range model for Rs. 9,900/- and the balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- was refunded to him by the O.Ps and during the hearing, the Complainant also admitted the said fact. So there is no doubt that as per complaint of Complainant, the O.Ps have replaced the Aquaguard machine with a new one. Further the allegations of Complainant regarding non provide of better service to him by the O.Ps during the defects occurred for second time for which the alleged machine was lying dead and is of no use, was strictly challenged by the O.Ps contending that during the visit of their technician to the residence of Complainant for repair of the alleged machine, he did not allow the technician for its repair, but on contrary, the O.Ps have miserably failed to prove their contentions by producing any cogent evidences, as such their pleas regarding such fact will not do.
- Further to find out the exact defects of the alleged aquaguard machine, we directed the Complainant to produce the same before the Fora on 15.12.2017 and also we made directions to the O.Ps to be present on the date fixed alongwith their technician. And as per our directions, both the parties are present alongwith alleged machine and technicians respectively. In our presence, the technician of the O.Ps verified the alleged machine. On close verification of the repair, it is found that the Foto Restor had been escaped from its main chamber sensor of the alleged aquaguard, which needs to be soldering, but while a new Foto Restor was implanted in the chamber, the alleged machine started to work, and the defects which according to the technician is occurs only due to use of heavy force by a person, so also the Complainant admitted said fact. Hence we feel, there is no any manufacturing defect in the alleged aquaguard machine and as such, the Complainant does not deserves to entitle a new aquaguard machine or refund of its costs from the O.Ps, as it is well settled principle of law that for a minor problem entire product cannot be replaced and if it will be done, than it will be an abuse to law.
- Further the allegations of Complainant regarding non provide of service by the O.Ps, though strictly challenged by the O.Ps., but to make it contrary they did not file any supportive evidence, as such their plea regarding the Complainant had not allowed their technician for repair of alleged aquaguard machine, will not do. Had the O.Ps provide the proper service to the Complainant by repairing the same at the time of his complaint to the O.Ps, than the defects in the alleged machine could have been rectified.In our view, not providing their service to the Complainant, the O.Ps have well proved the deficiency in service on their part, for which the Complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.
- From the foregoing paras as discussed, we feel that the alleged aquaguard machine was lying unused since the date filing of the present dispute and as per our direction, the O.Ps have sorted out the solution with immediate effect after a long gap i.e. nearly about two years. And in these days, definitely the Complainant must have faced mental agony as well as physical harassment, for which he is entitled some compensation and costs. Considering his suffering and harassment, we feel an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the end of justice. Hence this order.
ORDER
That the complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged aquaguard machine is herewith directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and costs to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which the amount towards compensation and cost shall carry 10% interest from the date of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 7th day of March, 2018.
Issue free copies to the parties concerned.
| |
