Delhi

East Delhi

CC/46/2016

S.N NAUTIYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PURICOM WATER - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 46/16

 

Shri S.N. Nautiyal

S/o Late Shri Bishan Dutt Nautiyal

R/o Flat No. 20-B, Pocket A-9,

Gomti Apartments, Kalkaji Extension                                                                 

New Delhi – 110 019                                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd.

H-17-18, Office No. 315

3^rd Floor, Laxmi Nagr

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Mr. Satya Prakash Nautiyal

Proprietor

H-17-18, Office No. 315

3^rd Floor, Laxmi Nagr

Delhi – 110 092

 

Also at:

H-25, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092                                                                …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 27.01.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 28.08.2018

Judgement Passed on: 31.08.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri S.N. Nautiyal against          M/s. Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Mr. Satya Prakash Nautiyal, Proprietor of OP-1 (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a water purifier Aquaguard Magna+ HD+RO+UV from M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited in the month of August 2014 with one year guarantee/warranty period.  After completion of one year, employees of M/s. Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) contacted the complainant and requested to have a service contract with OP-1 for RO’s periodical service stating that OP-1 is the authorized service centre of Eureka Forbes Limited.  On the assurance of Ms. Sateshwari Dhaundiyal, Mr. Semwal/Siswal and Mr. Nautiyal, employees of OP-1, the complainant signed the service contract on 25.06.2015 for a period of         2 years vide contract receipt no. Puricom-16300 dated 25.06.2015.  On the same day, Shri Naresh Pal, mechanic of OP-1 replaced the water filter candle of the RO in question.

            It was stated that in the last week of July, 2015, the RO stopped functioning for which the complainant contacted the abovementioned employees on their mobile phones, but all were found switched off.  On 13.08.2015, the complainant contacted Puricom’s service department and lodged the complaint of RO for which the mechanic came only on 18.08.2015, but on the next day the same problem arose.  That time, the complainant contacted the service centre of M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited whose mechanic immediately rectified the defect and revealed that the defect was due to replacement of water filter candle which was local made and substandard.  He also disclosed that M/s. Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd. was not authorized to provide the services of RO, manufactured/assembled by M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited.

            It was further stated that the complainant sent a complaint letter to OP-1 stating all the facts, posted on 14.09.2015 which was received back undelivered with the remarks “went there time and again but found locked, hence returned 21.09.2015”, but when the letter was sent by courtier on 24.09.2015, the same was delivered on 28.09.2015.  

            A legal notice was sent in the month of October, 2015 by the complainant, which was received back with the remarks “Left”. 

            It was stated that inspite of two years service contract with OP-1, they failed to provide the services to the complainant.  Hence, he has prayed for direction to OPs to rescind the service contract executed by   OP-1 on 25.06.2015; to refund the contractual amount of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest; to pay Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation cost and not to use the name of M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd. while getting the service contract signed from the RO holders.

3.         In the Written Statement filed on behalf of OP, they have stated that the complainant himself contacted OP through one of his known person; OP has not authorized any person to contact anybody to have service contract with them; they were not concerned in any manner with Eureka Forbes Limited. 

            It was stated that they provided efficient services as and when asked by the complainant upto his satisfaction and they used parts of standard quality.  Other facts have also been denied.   

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of his complaint. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of service contract (Ex.CW-1/A), copy of mail received from M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited (Ex.CW-1/B), copy of complaint letter which was received back (Ex.CW-1/C), registered AD receipt bearing no, ARD418455706IN (Ex.CW-1/D), undelivered envelop with remarks of postman (Ex.CW-1/E), original receipt of courier bearing no. Z-67882442 (Ex.CW-1/F), tracking report (Ex.CW-1/G), copy of legal notice and postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/H to 1/L), affidavit of the complainant (Ex.CW-1/M) and the complaint (Ex.CW-1/N).

            No evidence has been filed on behalf of OP and their right to file the same was closed.    

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the testimony of the complainant and the documents such as invoice cum receipt for service contract (Ex.CW-1/A), it is evident that complainant entered into a service contract with    M/s. Puricom Water Private Limited.  The perusal of this service contract shows that it has been signed by the complainant and there is nothing in this letter that M/s. Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) was an authorized service centre of M/s. Eureka Forbes Pvt. Ltd.  When the complainant himself have entered into a service contract with M/s. Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) , he cannot make a complaint that M/s. Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1)  was not the authorized service centre of M/s. Eureka Forbes Pvt. Ltd. 

            Further, his letter for termination of service contract on the ground of cheating and concealing true facts (Ex.CW-1/C)  which is of dated 14.09.2015 has been immediately after execution of the service contract.  The service contract has been valid from 25.06.2015 to 24.06.2017 and one of its condition under column ‘H’ is to the effect that the contract was not terminable.  When the contract was not terminable, the prayer made in the complaint cannot be accepted at all.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prayer made by the complainant in his complaint cannot be allowed.  Thus, the complaint has no merit and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.       

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

President