IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 31st day of May, 2016
Filed on 18..11..2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.338/2015
4between
Complainants:- Opposite Parties:-
- Sri. C.J. Varghese 1. The Manager, M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd.
Advocate, Cherupalikkattu House 9/116 B Puthiya Road, Eroor
Cherthala P.O., Cherthala Taluk Thrippunithaura 682 306
- Smt. Suma K.M., Advocate 2. The Manager, Eureka Forbes Ltd.
Kalappurackal House B1/B2, 701, 7th Floor, Marathon Innova Arthunkal P.O., Cherthala Marathon Next Gen. off Ganpatrao
(By Adv. E.D. Zacharias) Kadam Marg, Lower Parel
Mumbai – 400 013
3. Sri. Umesh. U, Team Leader, Eureka Forbes, Door No.9/204 A, Oppo. of Maneesha Gas Agency
South Eroor, Thrippunithura – 682 301
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The opposite parties have a business stall in the Fiesta conducted by Air Asia and Manorama at Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,, Kaloor, Ernakulam during Onam festival in 2015. The complainants have contacted the opposite parties through their clerk and booked two sets of Dr. Aqua guard water filters. The opposite parties offered and promised to supply Dr. Aqua guard Magna HD RO + UV+ with advanced mineral guard Technology for a sum of Rs.12,990/- a reduced rate for the Onam special season at the door of the complainants for their orders. The opposite parties undertook free installation of the apparatus besides an offer of a fabulous bag. Accordingly the complainants paid the entire amount and opposite parties delivered the water filters on 30.8.2015. At the time of installation of the apparatus, the mechanic concerned revealed that this water filter supplied does not have any R.O. facility though the company is supplying water filters with R.O. facility. The opposite parties did not inform either to the complainants or to Mr. V.J. Francis that the water filter has no R.O. facility. There are various other standard company filters available in the market with R.O. facility for a lesser amount than at Rs.12,990/-. The opposite parties have not supplied the water filter as offered and promised and further not supplied the offered bag. There was no reduction of price for the Onam season as promised by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not made any purity test of the water available before and after filtration as promised by the opposite parties earlier. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties, but in vain. The complainant sustained much mental agony and financial loss and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the amount along with compensation and costs.
2. Notice were served to the opposite parties, the opposite parties represented through counsel before this Forum, but did not filed any version and also absent for the subsequent proceedings. Hence opposite parties 1 to 3 set ex-parte.
3. The complainants filed proof affidavits and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A12.
3. Considering the allegations of the complainants this Forum has raised the following issues:-
- Whether the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in service?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
4. Issues 1 and 2:- The case of the complainants is that the opposite parties have a stall in the Fiesta conducted by Air Asia and Manorama at Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Kaloor, Ernakulam during Onam festival season, 2015. The complainants through their clerk booked for two Dr. Aqua guard water filters. The specific case of the complainants is that the opposite parties assured to supply of Dr. Aqua guard water filter having R.O. facility for an amount of Rs.12,990/-. But they supplied the water filter which has no R.O. facility. The complainants contacted the opposite parties over telephone many times and requested for refund of the amount. Further they sent a lawyer’s notice on 23.9.2015, but in vain, hence filed this complaint.
5. Complainants filed separate proof affidavits and documents Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. Ext.A1 is the user manual, Ext.A2 is the true copy of receipt dated 30.08.2015 in the name of C.J. Varghese, Ext.A3 is the true copy of receipt dated 28.08.2015 in the name of Suma K.M., Ext.A4 is the Goods consignment note dated 25.08.2015 in the name of C.J.Varghese, Ext.A5 is the delivery chellan dated 25.08.2015, Ext.A6 is the letter issued by Dr. Abhayakumar, Ext.A7 is the receipt dated 23.08.2015, Ext.A8 is the Goods consignment note dated 25.08.2015 in the name of Adv. Suma, Ext.A9 is the delivery chellan dated 25.08.2015 in the name of Suma K.M., Ext.A10 is the visiting card, Ext.A11 is the true copy of the lawyer’s notice dated 23.09.2015 and Ext.A12 is the postal acknowledgement card.
6. The specific case of the complainants is that the opposite parties promised to supply Dr. Aqua guard Magna HD RO + UV with advanced mineral guard Technology for an amount of Rs.12,990/-. But the supplied water filters have no R.O. facility. According to the complainants, they have purchased products under the definite assurance given by the opposite parties that they will provide the Dr. Aqua guard water filter with R.O. facility for an amount of Rs.12,990/-. So the acts of the opposite parties are illegal and unfair trade practice. It is only after the installation of the products, the complainants came to notice that the said products have no R.O. facility. Thereafter, they issued a legal notice to the opposite parties, but they have not shown any earnest efforts to redress the grievances of the complainants. The proof affidavits filed by the complainants stand unchallenged. On hearing the complainants and from the evidence on record, the Forum is fully convinced that the allegations put forwarded by the complainants against the opposite parties are highly genuine. It is pertinent to note that the products delivered on 30.08.2015 and the complainants filed this case on 18.11.2015 ie. immediately after 2 months from the date of installation. So they are entitled to get refund of the price of the products. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of the products Rs.12,990/- each to the complainants and the complainants are directed to return the products to the opposite parties simultaneously. Failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainants:-
Ext.A1 - User manual
Ext.A2 - Tue copy of receipt dated 30.08.2015 in the name of C.J. Varghese
Ext.A3 - True copy of receipt dated 28.08.2015 in the name of Suma K.M
Ext.A4 - Goods consignment note dated 25.08.2015 in the name of C.J.Varghese Ext.A5 - Delivery chellan dated 25.08.2015
Ext.A6 - Letter issued by Dr. Abhayakumar
Ext.A7 - Receipt dated 23.08.2015
Ext.A8 - Goods consignment note dated 25.08.2015 in the name of Adv. Suma Ext.A9 - Delivery chellan dated 25.08.2015 in the name of Suma K.M.
Ext.A10 - Visiting card
Ext.A11 - True copy of the lawyer’s notice dated 23.09.2015
Ext.A12 - Postal acknowledgement card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
