Orissa

Cuttak

CC/71/2020

Manoranjan Khatua - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Manager,Eureka Forbes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G S Mohanty & associates

06 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                C.C.No.71/2020

Sri Manoranjan Khatua,

S/O:Late Sankarsan Khatua,Jhanjir Mangala,

P.O:Telengabazar,P.S:Badambadi,Cuttack,

Pin Code-753009,Odisha.                                                                           ... Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       Regional Manager/Regional Officer,

Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

7,Chakraberia Road(South),

                  Kolkata-700025,India

 

2.       Manager/Officer-in-Charge,

M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Block-A,

Ground Floor,Forest Park,

                  Bhubaneswar,Khorda,Odisha-751009

 

3.       The Managing Director,

M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd.,B/1,B/2,701,

Marathon Innova,Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

Lower Patel,Mumbai-400013,India.                                                 ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   14.09.2020

Date of Order:  06.10.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. G.S.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps     :                    None  

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

                                                                          

            Case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased an Aquaguard(Classic Plus) on 26.11.18 on payment of Rs.10,690/-.  He had also paid Rs.1500/- towards installation charges of the said Aquaguard in his residence.  It is alleged by the complainant that after 3 to 4 months of installation of the Aquaguard the said Aquaguard did not function properly.  The complainant lodged a complaint before the Customer Service cell of O.Ps but the O.Ps did not take any action over his complaint.  After repeated requests, the technical person of the O.Ps came to the house of the complainant and verified the said Aquaguard and intimated the complainant that the chips used in the said Aquaguard are defective and he has to bear the cost of the said chips as well as cost of the filter candles as the chips are not available separately.  The technical person insisted the complainant to enter into a contract with the O.P for one year to avail free service of the Aquaguard.  Hence, the complainant executed a contract on 30.12.19 in that respect on payment of Rs.2225/- and the said contract period was valid from 30.12.19 to 30.12.20.  It is further alleged by the complainant that again the defect noticed in the said Aquaguard on 23.7.20 and he intimated the O.Ps about the said defect and non-functioning of the Aquaguard properly.  The O.Ps did not take any action to the grievance of the complainant and did not rectify the defect in the said Aquaguard.  Finally the complainant issued notice to the O.Ps and asked for replacement of the Aquaguard and to provide new Aquaguard without having chips but the O.P paid deaf ear to the request of the complainant.  The complainant being aggrieved by such action of the O.Ps has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to replace the Aquaguard by a new one without chips and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss sustained by him as well as for mental agony.

            The complainant in order to prove his case has filed xerox copies of certain documents.

2.         The O.Ps have neither appeared nor contested this case, hence they are set exparte.

3.         The points for determination in case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Points no.i & ii

            For the sake of convenience, points no.i & ii are taken up together for consideration here in this case.

            From the averments in the complaint petition and the documents available in the case record, it reveals that the complainant had purchased a Aquaguard machine on payment of Rs.10,690/-.  The complainant also filed xerox copy of the contract receipt dt.30.12.19, which reveals that the complainant has paid Rs.2225/- towards the contract value for extension of warranty from 30.12.19 to 29.12.20.  The Aquaguard machine purchased by the complainant developed certain problems but the O.Ps did not rectify the same during warranty period of purchase.  However, technical person of the O.Ps came to the residence of the complainant and insisted for an agreement for further one year for free service of his Aquaguard machine and equipment.  So the complainant executed an agreement on 30.12.19 to that effect.  It reveals that during such extended warranty period, the Aquaguard machine of the complainant did not function properly.  The O.P did not rectify the defects of the said Aquaguard machine and equipments inspite of the repeated request made by the complainant. Hence the O.Ps are infact deficient in their service towards the complainant by not rectifying the defect in his Aquaguard machine and equipment within the warranty period as well as during the extended warranty period.  The complainant’s plea remained unchallenged.  Hence, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service and the present case is maintainable.  Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

 

 

Issue no.iii.

            From the discussions as made above, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                       ORDER

            The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to refund the cost of the Aquaguard i.e. Rs.10,690/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 26.11.18 till the total amount is quantified to the complainant.  They are further directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the compensation for his mental agony as well as Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 6^th day of Ooctober,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                           Member.

 

                 Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                             President