DATE OF FILING                    :     07/04/2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      18/06/2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     27/08/2014.

M.C. SURANA

S/o Sri Gulab Chand Surana,

123 Nepal Saha Lane, 1st floor,

P.O. & P.S. Shibpur,

Howrah -------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

RELIABLE SERVICES,

55/1, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane

Howrah 711 101---------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, M.C. Surana,   by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to replace the water  purifier in question alternatively to refund  the purchase price along with maintenance charges, so received by the o.p., to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs together with other reliefs as the Forum may  deem fit and proper. 

2.               Brief fact of the case is that complainant purchased one water purifier from o.p. on payment of  Rs. 5,800/- on 17-04-2012 vide  Annexure P/1. O.p. also assured the complainant that if any defect arises within one year of purchase, the defect would be rectified without any cost. O.p., further assured the complainant that if complainant pays annual maintenance charges, o.p. shall extend free services within the free maintenance period. On such assurances, complainant paid Rs. 2,500/- on 19-11-2012 as annual maintenance charge for five years vide Annexure P/2. But due to low quality adaptor, it was burnt and purified water could not be received from the said machine on and from April, 2013.  Complainant immediately informed the o.p. over phone and o.p. sent its men only on 14-05-2013 although the problem arose in April. However, after inspection of the machine, o.p.’s men told the complainant that the defect    could not be repaired immediately and the machine was handed over to the o.p. At that time, o.p.’s men assured the complainant that machine would be delivered within two / three days but even after  lapse of few months, the water purifier was not delivered to the complainant.  So, on 12-01-2014, complainant went to o.p.’s office to enquire about the machine and o.p., still, assured him that within few days, it would be repaired and delivered to him. But nothing happened according to the assurances of o.p. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.   

3.               Notices were served. But it never  appeared and filed any written version. Accordingly, case heard ex parte.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.    Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint / petition sworn on affidavit noted its contents and annexures. We all know that water purifier is an important as well as essential household gadget. Impure water can even take away lives at any point of time. O.p. has forgotten the nature and character of its business. It has undertaken the responsibility of supplying pure water to the complainant and his family members. Moreover, even after receiving the summon, o.p. remained absent and did not file any written version.  So, the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. O.p. showed gross negligence in discharging its duty towards the complainant even after receiving the annual maintenance charges.  A water purifier that costs Rs. 5,800/-  became useless within one year of purchase which proves that definitely it was having a manufacturing defect. Accordingly the o.p. is found to be deficient in providing service to the complainant.  Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  188 of 2014 ( HDF 188 of 2014 )  be  allowed ex parte   with  costs  against  the O.P.  

      That the  O.P. is  directed to pay Rs. 8,300/-  to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

       That o.p. is further  directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigations costs to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., the entire decreetal amount of  Rs. 11,300/- shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.            

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.