Tripura

West Tripura

CC/53/2015

Dr. (Maj) Kakali Dhar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Eureka Forbes Ltd. & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs.P.Chakraborty, Mr.D.D.Chaudhury.

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  53 of 2015

         Dr. (Maj.) Kakali Dhar, 
W/O- Dr. Bappaditya Shom,
Krishnanagar, Kadamtala, 
Old Kalibari Road, 
Agartala, West Tripura.        .............Complainant.
    

         ______VERSUS______

Eureka Forbes Limited,
Represented by Sri Biswajit Ghosh, 
Divisional Head South 
End Cone Lane 1582, 
Rajdanga Main 2nd Floor,
(Rashbehari Connector), 
Kolkata-700107, 
West Bengal.

M/S. Sunil Kumar Banik,
Ronaldsay Road, Battala, 
Agartala, West Tripura.        ...........Opposite Parties.
        
    
                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

for the Complainant        : Smt. Paramita Chakraborty and
                  Sri Dip Dutta Choudhury,
                  Advocates.        
                           
For the O.Ps No.1 & 2    : None appeared.
                  

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  01.12.15

J U D G M E N T
        
        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Dr. Kakali Dhar, W/o- Dr. Bappaditya Shom of Krishnanagar, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely Eureka Forbes Ltd. represented by Sri Biswajit Ghosh, Divisional Head South End Cone lane, 1582, Rajdanga Main 2nd Floor, Koklata and another over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps. 
    
2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant purchased  one Eureka Forbes Water Treatment UV Plant(Model UV Plant 2000 LPH )from the O.P. No.2, M/S. Sunil Kr. Banik, Agartala, the Distributor of the products manufactured by the O.P. No.1 company, at Rs.64,206/- vide invoice dated 25.08.2014. Before purchase of the water purifier, one Sri Shiko Ghosh, the Sales Representative of the company, gave demonstration as to the advantages of use of the product. Being convinced of the assurance given by the local sales representative of the company, the complainant placed an order with the O.P. No.1 for installation of the said water purifier at her residence. After installation of the product it was found that the water purifier was not providing dirt free water as was expected. Immediately she informed the local sales representative as to the  short coming of the product who then physically inspected the water purifier to verify the complaint. He suggested to clean the pipe lines. As per suggestion of the sales representative, the pipe lines were cleaned by engaging a plumber. Still the water purifier was not providing clean water. The complainant then made contact with the sales representative who visited her house and collected sample of water for testing. Thereafter, the complainant was asked by the sales representative to install an iron removing plant for purification of water. Since it would cost a large amount, but she did not agree to his proposal. She tried to make contact with the local sales representative on a number of occasions to rectify the defect of the water purifier, but she received no response from him. On 26.11.14 she sent a letter to the sales representative of the O.P. No.1 by speed post. But he did not respond to it. Finding no other alternative, she served a legal notice upon the O.P. No.1 on 04.03.15. Which also evoked no response. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.P. constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.
    
3.        The O.Ps did not contest the case despite receipt of notices. Hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against them.
    
4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined herself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited 8 nos. of documents(70 sheets) filed on 21.11.15 with firisti as Exhibit – 1 Series.
            Findings:
5.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.Ps adopted unfair trade practice and was deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
        
6.        We have already heard argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Also perused the pleading, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.

7.        There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant installed one Aqua Guard Water Purifier of Model No. UV Plant 2000 LPH manufactured by Eureka Forbes Ltd. at her residence. She purchased it from the O.P. No.2 at Rs.64,206/- on 25.08.14. It is the allegation of the complainant that soon after installation of the water purifier, it came to her notice that the water purifier was not providing clean water as per assurance given by the sales representative of the company. It also appears from the pleading and evidence of the complainant that she made contact with the sales representative of the company on a number of occasions to rectify its defect. When she was suggested to install one UV purification machine with iron removing plant so as to  get purified water from the purifier installed at her residence. It is presumed that at the initial stage of installation of the water purifier the sales representative of the company duly checked the flow of water coming out of the supply pipe line including the quality of water to satisfy on whether the model of water purifier to be installed at the house of the complainant would be viable. As it appears, when the water purifier was not providing clean water as assured only then the sales representative of the company advised the complainant to installed an UV purification machine with iron removing plant, which would cost too much to get clean water. If the water purifier installed at the house of the complainant was not able to provide clean water because of formation of sedimentation in the pipe line, the service engineer ought to have enlighted this fact to the complainant before installation of the water purifier in question. The complainant purchased the water purifier by spending a large amount of money with the expectation of getting microbe free water. Suppression of material fact as to the non functioning of the present water purifier smoothly without installation of purification machine with iron removing plant at the initial stage of installation of the water purifier at the residence of the complainant certainly amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

8.        The plea taken by the complainant in her pleading has  remained unrebutted and unshaken since the O.Ps chose not to contest the case. Until contrary is proved, we are to rely upon the assertion made by the complainant in her pleading as well as evidence. It is needless to say that the complainant being not able to utilize the service of water purifier installed at her house inspite of spending a large amount of money suffered a lot which, in our opinion, constituted a gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1, the manufacturer of the product. 

9.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed exparte. The O.P. No.1 is  directed to pay Rs.64,206/-(Rupees sixty four thousand two hundred and six) as the price of the water purifier to the complainant within 45 days from today since it failed to provide clean water as assured. The O.P. No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) to the complainant for causing  her mental agony and harassment with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) as cost of litigation. The O.P. No.1 will pay the entire amount within the stipulated period as aforesaid, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of presentation of the complaint before this Forum on 01.06.15 till the payment is made in full.          
   
10.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.