Haryana

Panchkula

CC/210/2015

MANISH GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

OBEROI ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	210 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	01.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	11.02.2016

                                                                                          

Manish Goyal s/o Sh.Bharat Bhushan Goyal, H.No.873, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana-134113.

 

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

Oberoi Enterprises, SCF 114/115, Jamuna Enclave, Zirakpur, Pb.-140603.

 

                                                                                        ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Op already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased Membrane Filter, Membrane Filter Housing on 01.09.2015 and Spun Filter on 03.09.2015. After purchase of filter, there was a problem with RO (Reverse Osmosis) water purifier system with one of the pipes and the water was leaked from it. The complainant intimated the Op about the leakage of water. The representative of Op namely Sahil visited the house of complainant on 01.09.2015 who fixed the pipe and also tested the water purity on his own and told the complainant that the main membrane filter of the RO system needed replacement. The complainant inquired the matter from representative of the company, who informed the complainant that the cost would be around Rs.1700/- including the cost of the component, installation and the entire repair. The complainant agreed to get the filter changed. After opening the filter, the representative of OP told the complainant that the part which tightened the filter was broken and the stuck piece was not coming out so the entire casing needed to be replaced. The complainant had no other option and agreed to get the casing replaced. The representative of the Op replaced the part after spending one or two hours. The representative of Op tried to show that everything was working but there was still some issue as the water was draining out even after the RO motor stopped running. The wife of the complainant also did the objection but the representative of the Op rejected and told that was normal situation with the RO system. Thereafter, the complainant found that the water was not storing in the overhead storage tank and called the company again on 02.09.2015 and explained the issue. Thereafter, the complainant was told that there was an issue with a switch and it was not working & needed to be replaced but the complainant did not agree for their inference. After many discussions, the company agreed to come and take a look at the issue and to replace the part if needed. On 03.09.2015, the person namely Sahil came and replaced the part that he had suspected to be of the problem. He also replaced the filter the cost of was Rs.250/- but the issue was not resolved as there was leakage and the water was not getting stored. The complainant did the objection but the representative of Op told to wait for some time. But there was also a consistent leakage from the part that he replaced. The complainant again called the Op and after many requests of complainant, on 29.09.2015 a person visited the house of the complainant and told that adapter was broken and needed replacement. The complainant explained him that everything was working find and the water was leaking from the switch that was falling on the adapter and might have damaged it. At this the person told the complainant that the company person should not have gone ahead and replaced the parts in the first place. He also mentioned that the company would send someone the next day i.e. on 30.09.2015 and then after checking to see if they could repair, they would refund the amount. Next day i.e. on 30.09.2015, the complainant called the company who told that the adapter was bad and the complainant would have to bear the cost to replace it. They also told that if the complainant would want to buy a new RO system, they would discount the amount that has already been charged till now. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op through process server and the same has been received after effecting service. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op after effecting service. The Op was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2016.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record.
5. Admittedly, the complainant purchased Membrane Filter, Membrane Filter Housing on 01.09.2015 and Spun Filter on 03.09.2015 but there was a problem with RO (Reverse Osmosis) water purifier system with one of the pipes and the water was leaked from it. The complainant intimated the Op about the leakage of water. The representative of Op namely Sahil visited the house of complainant on 01.09.2015 who after opening the filter told that the part which tightened the filter was broken and the stuck piece was not coming out so the entire casing needed to be replaced. The complainant got replaced the entire casing and paid Rs.2000/- as is evident Annexure C-1. But thereafter, the water from where was draining out stopped running. The complainant called the company again on 02.09.2015 and explained the issue. Thereafter, the complainant was told that there was an issue with a switch and it was not working & needed to be replaced. On 03.09.2015, the complainant got replaced the part that he had suspected to be the problem and paid Rs.250/- (Annexure C-2) but there was leakage and the water was not getting stored. The complainant again informed the Op and on 29.09.2015 a person visited the house of the complainant and told that adapter was broken and needed replacement. The company offered the complainant that if he would want to buy a new RO system, they would discount the amount that has already been charged till now. From the above, it reveals that the RO system was giving problem after many repair or replacement. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
6. Moreover, the Op did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Op despite notice shows that it has nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Op is proved.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are directed as under:-

(i)      To pay Rs.2250/- charged from the complainant for the repair of RO.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

 

                 Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

11.02.2016         S.P.ATTRI        ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER       MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                          

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT