CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO. CC/183/2019

Date of Institution:-20.12.2016

Order reserved on:11.04.2023

Date of Decision:-12.04.2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Pankaj Rai

S/o Sh. Late Batukeshwar Rai

R/o H. No.-182, Metro View Apartment

Sector-13, Dwarka, Delhi                                                              

......Complainant

VERSUS

Pure Water

Through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Proprietor

At-304, IIIrd Floor,

Atlantic Plaza, I.P.

Ext. Madhu Vihar,

Near AVB Public School, Delhi – 110092                            

        .…..Opposite party

O R D E R

Per R. C. Yadav, Member

1. The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a service contract for water purifiers RO on 07.10.2018 and paid Rs.3800/- for the same vide contract receipt no. 200742 with one year service contract guarantee which is annexed as Annexure-C/1.

2. The OP is engaged in the business in the name of pure water and dealing with all kinds of service work of aqua guard RO.

3. On 07.10.2018, OP sent his employees to service the aqua guard RO and during the service of RO the machine of RO was fell down and got damaged. The OP and his representative assured the complainant to replace the RO within 24 hours. The RO was damaged due to the negligence on the part of the representative of the OP. The photo of damaged RO is also annexed with Annexure-C/1/B.
4. The complainant requested OP to replace the RO but OP has not replaced the RO and complainant had to spent Rs.42,000/- on water for his seven family members. The complainant also send a legal notice to OP which is Annexure C/2. The complainant also prays to replace the RO and refund of Rs.42,000/- spend on water for his family along with Rs.40,000/- for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- for litigation charges.

5. The OP was served who did not enter appearance. He was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.07.2019.

6. Complainant has filed his ex-parte evidence in support of his case.

7. We have heard the complainant who submitted that matter may be disposed of on the basis of material on record.

8. We have carefully and thoroughly gone through the material on record.

9. The case of the complainant is that he was purchased a service contract for water purifier RO on 07.10.2018 and paid Rs.3800/- for the same with one year guarantee. On 07.10.2018, OP sent his employees for service of RO but RO fell down and got damaged. Complainant requested the OP to replace the RO but OP had neither replaced the RO nor refunded the money. He has to spent Rs.42,000/- for water for his family. He has sent a legal notice dated 22.10.2018 to the OP but in vain. The case of the complainant is supported by the documents like legal notice, photographs of the damaged RO and Contract receipt for the service of the RO. The case of the complainant does not suffer for any factual or legal defect. The allegations made by the complainant have gone unchallenged, uncontested and unrebutted. It is clear that despite receipt of money for contract of service of RO, the OP has neither repaired the RO nor refunded the money paid by complainant to OP and this act apparently and clearly constitutes “deficiency-in-service” and unfair trade practice on part of the OP.

10. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.3,800/- which was paid for service along with Rs.20,000/- lump sum for damage, mental agony and litigation charges within 45 days of receipt of copy of order. Failing which OP shall be liable to pay the entire amount with interest @9% p.a. till realization.

• Order be given dasti to both parties.
• The file be consigned to record room thereafter.