Delhi

East Delhi

CC/613/2014

SATISH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PURICOM WATER - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2017

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.  613/14

Shri Satish Makhija

1174, Sector A, Pocket A

Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi – 110 070                                                    ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd.

H-23, Vikas Marg

Lakshmi Nagar,

Delhi – 110 092                                                               …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 04.07.2014

Judgement Reserved on : 13.12.2017

Judgement Passed on: 13.12.2017

 

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 Satish Makhija against      M/s. Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd.(OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that complainant Shri Satish Makhija got AMC on the advice of Mr. Vikas, representative of the company, who was called on 28.04.2013 to check their RO water purifier.  An amount of Rs. 3,200/- was paid for AMC which stated “During the AMC period for the RO system, only one (sic) time Membrane and Motor will be changed (sic).”  Second and third quarterly service was provided, however, RO membrane element was not replaced.  Forth free service was to be provided for which the complainant made phone calls, however, it was told that it will be provided only if they pay for service agreement for one more year.

          On making their complaint to the Consumer Rights Organization, 4th service was provided by the company.  Thus, the complainant have stated that the company has not provided the free replacement of RO membrane filter element and pump, which was in their initial agreement.  Hence, he has prayed for directions to OP to provide free replacement of the RO membrane filter and pump’ pay Rs. 3,000/- for the cost of mineral water, purchased during April, May and June. 

3.       In the reply, OP have stated that the company have provided free all services as per terms and conditions of service card for one year i.e. 28.04.2013 to 27.04.2014.  They provided service to the complainant on 16.07.2013, 27.11.2013, 20.01.2014 and 20.06.2014 respectively. 

          It has further been stated that there was no need to change the membrane as the membrane was working properly and the TDS level of water was normal.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas. 

5.       In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.

          No evidence has been filed on behalf of OP. 

5.       We have gone through the evidence and other documents and have perused the material placed on record as the complainant did not appear to argue.  Though the complainant have filed his affidavit in support of his complaint, but he has not placed anything on record to show that the Puricom Water Pvt. Ltd. (OP) have not attended to his services.  On the contrary, OP have placed on record a copy of service report alongwith the written statement, showing that their representative have made visits on 16.07.2013, 27.11.2013, 20.01.2014 and 20.06.2014 respectively for service, whereby they have changed the candle from time to time. 

          Thus, the testimony of the complainant that they have not changed the membrane element cannot be accepted.  Therefore, his testimony is not reliable.  That being so, he has failed to substantiate his allegations.  Hence, his complaint deserves its dismissal 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

           

            

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.