Orissa

Rayagada

CC/189/2016

Jay Kukreja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Subham Enterproses - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 189/ 2016.                                        Date.  23. 6. 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Sri GadadharaSahu, B.Sc.                                           President I/C.

Smt. Padmalaya Mishra, LL.B.                                     Member

 

Sri  Jay  Kukreja, S/O:  Sri  Syamalal  Kukreja, New Colony,  Po/Dist.Rayagada,

State:  Odisha.                                                                                           …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager, Subham  Enterprises,  Eureka Forbes Ltd., Po/Dist.Rayagada,

State:  Odisha.

2. The Manager, Eureka Forbes Ltd.,  H.O. B/1/B/2 701, 7^th. Floor, Marathan Next Gen Innova, Off GanatafroKadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013.

                                                              .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri  V.S.Raju and associates, Rayagada

For the O.Ps:-  In  person.

                                                J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non replacement  of  the entire  Dr.  Aquaguard unit or to refund the sale price.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

1.       That the complainant had purchased  Dr.  Aquaguard  having RO/UV/UF of Eureka Forbes Ltd. make from the  O.P. No.1  and paid Rs.18,490/- bearing  invoice No. 51 Dt. 2.8.2015.  The unit purchased  by the complainant  carries a warranty of one year from the date of purchase.  The above unit  had not run properly since  March, 2016.  On  complaint the O.Ps had sent their service mechanic  for rectification  of the defects  from time to time.  The complainant had requested the O.Ps  several times and approached in person  to rectify the defects of the above unit but the O.Ps  are postponing the same showing  for  some or other plea.  Hence this case. The complainant prays  the forum to direct the O.Ps to replace entire unit or to refund the sale price with the damages a sum  of Rs.50,000.00 for the loss of services and mental agony suffered by the complainant and award Rs.10,000.00 towards litigation expenses and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

 

2.       On being noticed the O.Ps are appeared before the forum in person  and defended the case  but not choose to file written version. The  O.Ps  submitted  before the forum  that  they are ready to give  free service during  the warranty period to the above Aquaguard  and agreed  to replace  the same with a new one with fresh warranty. 

 

          Arguments of the O.Ps and from the learned counsel for the complainant heard.  Perused the record, documents, filed by the parties.  Both the parties have made arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.

 

                                                FINDINGS.

 

3.       On perusal of the record it is revealed that  the purchase of Aquaguard  by the complainant  is not denied by the O.Ps.    The O.Ps  submitted   that    they are ready to give the service as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said set.   The learned counsel  for the  complainant submitted that the O.Ps  had not given  good service as per the warranty  condition  when he approached. The  O.Ps  have  also refused to give any thing in writing.  So he has filed this complaint for such refusal.

 

          It is settled principle of law that no consumer will make any such complaint if there is no such deficiency.

 

          During the  course of hearing  the  O.Ps have agreed to replace the above set with a new one, but the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently objected and submitted  that the  O.Ps  should  refund  the purchase price of the above set  and   to  give compensation a sum of Rs.50,000/-.  The O.Ps have not agreed the above proposal  and agreed to refund the purchase price of the above set .

 

          The complainant has claimed a cash compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss sustained by him  but he has not  filed  any documents in support  of the above loss except  complaint  petition..  

         

In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, argument of both the parties  we allow  the complaint petition in part.

Hence to meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

 

                                                ORDER.

4.       In the result with these  observations, findings, discussion the complaint petition is allowed  in part on contest against the O.Ps.

 

           

The O.Ps are ordered to take back  their product  and  refund price of the    Dr. Aquaguard  set   a sum of Rs. Rs.18,490/- to the complainant.  The O.Ps are further ordered to pay Rs.500.00 (Rupees five hundred)only towards litigation  expenses.  The  complainant  is directed to hand over the  old set to the O.Ps with due acknowledgement.

 

          The O.Ps are ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take further proceedings U/S-25 & 27 of the C.P. Act.  Service the copies of the order to the parties.

 

Dictated  and  corrected  by  me.

                Pronounced on this               23rd      Day    of         June,   2017.

 

 

          Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copies of the sale voucher  Dt. 2.8.2015
2. Xerox copies of the warranty card.

 

By the Opp.Parties:-

 Nil

 

                                                                                                 President