Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/487

M S Negi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram Water Technology - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2014

ORDER

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution           : 30.07.14

 

Case. No.DF-III/487/2014/                                                                    Date of order         : 12.5.2016

In the matter of :-

Sh. M.S. Negi,

Qtr. No.60/4, New CVD Line,

Sadar Bazar,

Delhi Cantt-110010.                                                                     Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Shri Ram Water Technology,

E-53, Karampura,

New Delhi-110015.                                                                       Opposite Party

 

  (R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT)

O R D E R     

 

                        Brief facts  of the complaint as stated are that Sh. M.S. Negi - complainant entered into Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with Shri Ram Water Technology -opposite party for servicing of Acqua Fresh RO + UV  on 27.1.2014 for  sum of Rs. 2500/- commencing from 27.01.2014 to 27.1.15 for one year.

 

                        The allegations against opposite party are that the opposite party is not providing service despite personal contact to Mr. Raghunath, technician, Mr. Anil and Ms. Kanchan, receptionist.   The opposite party and its employees  also refused  to provide further service.   Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to provide regular service till AMC is over.

-2-

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party.   But despite service opposite party did not appear.   Therefore, opposite party was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.1.15.  

 

                        When Sh. M.S. Negi, complainant  was asked to lead evidence, he tendered in evidence his affidavit wherein he once again narrated the facts of the complaint and asserted that despite repeated requests the opposite party and its employees are not providing service as per the AMC executed between the parties.  

           

                        The complainant in support of his case also relied upon copy of AMC and receipt dated 27.1.14.   From the perusal of copy of the AMC and receipt, it reveals that opposite party on 27.1.14 entered into AMC with complainant for servicing of Acqua Fresh RO + UV  on receipt of Rs. 2500/-.   Services were to be provided on 27.5.14, 27.9.14 and 27.1.15.

 

                        We have heard the complainant in person  and have gone through the record carefully and thoroughly.

 

                        The ex-parte evidence of the complainant has remained un-rebutted and un-challenged.  Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the un-rebutted version and evidence of the complainant.    From the complaint, affidavit of complainant,  AMC and receipt it reveals that complainant entered into AMC with opposite party on 27.1.14 for servicing of Acqua Fresh RO + UV  

 

-3-

for one year  from 27.1.14 to 27.1.15.  The complainant paid a sum of                Rs. 2500/- as AMC charges to the opposite party.   The complainant performed his part of the agreement.   But the opposite party did not perform their part of the agreement.

 

                        Therefore, the complaint succeeds in proving that the opposite party is negligent in performing their part of the agreement as they did not provide service for Acqua Fresh RO + UV   to the complainant for the AMC period  from 27.1.14  to 27.1.15 despite receipt of Rs. 2500/-.   Hence, the opposite party is negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  party.  

 

                        The complainant in prayer clause has prayed for providing proper service by the opposite party during the AMC period.   The complaint was filed on 8.8.14.  The AMC expired 27.1.15.  The opposite party has taken a sum of Rs. 2500/- from the complainant  as AMC charges.   

 

                        The complainant has suffered loss of Rs. 2500/- of the AMC charges.   He has also suffered pain, agony and sufferings for negligence of opposite party.   The opposite party is entitled  to recover cost of the AMC and compensation for mental pain, agony and sufferings.

 

 

-4-

                        Therefore, we direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- of AMC charges with interest @ 9% P.A from the date of filing  the present complaint till actual realisation of the amount along with  Rs. 5000/- for compensation for harassment for mental pain, agony, suffering and litigation expenses.

 

Order pronounced on   : 12.5.2016

 

• Compliance of the order be made within the 30 days after receipt of the order.

 

• Copy of order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

• File  be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

 

      (PUNEET LAMBA)                           (URMILA GUPTA)                        ( R.S.  BAGRI )

       MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT