DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 06.03.2021
CC/46/2021
Dr. Preena Maria Mathew
238, Hemambika Nagar, Railway Colony
Kallekulangara (PO)
Palakkad - 678 009 - Complainant
(Party in person)
V/s
Manager
Aquaro Services
401, Arura Building
Byepass Junction, Chandra Nagar
Palakkad – 678 007 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.Rajesh.M)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant
Complainant bought a Eureka Forbes Aquaguard water purifier Aquaflo DX in the year 2015. The opposite party introduced themselves as the authorised service centre for Eureka Forbes and the complainant entered into an Annual maintenance contract with them for Rs. 3,900/- for a period of 3 years from 07/10/2018 to 06/10/2021. In 2020, August the Aquaguard stopped functioning, the service personnel of opposite party checked it and informed that its board is defective and needs to be replaced. At first the opposite party informed that there is some delay in getting the spare parts due to lockdown and later in January 2021 informed that the board is not available anywhere. They told that this model is outdated and it is better to replace the water purifier with a new one. Believing that the opposite party is the authorised service partner of Eureka Forbes, the complainant accepted the exchange offer made by them and purchased a new product by spending Rs. 6,000/- At the time of installation, the complainant was not at home and she did not see the product details. When she asked the bill and warranty card, the opposite party told that they will give it later.
After a few days, she came to know that the product is of some other brand and not Eureka Forbes. The complainant contacted Eureka Forbes to register a complaint about this incident and she was informed by them that they have no connection with Aquaro Service and the opposite party, Aqura Service is unscrupulously using their brand name. Further they informed that complainant’s Aquaguard model’s board is also available with them and since the complainant did not have AMC with Eureka Forbes, she has to pay Rs. 2,030/- for replacement of the board.
When she contacted the opposite party, they told that they never claimed to be associated with Eureka Forbes and they are not ready to return or refund Rs. 6,000/-; the cost of the product sold by them. During the AMC period, the opposite party without changing the defective part forced them to buy a new product. It is a deficiency in service on their part.
So she approached this Commission for directing the opposite party
- To refund Rs. 3,900/-; paid as AMC charge.
- To refund Rs. 6,000/-; the cost of the exchanged water purifier.
- Rs. 2,030/- being the cost of the board and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as transport expense.
2. After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party and they appeared and filed version.
3. The opposite party in their version admit that the complainant was their customer and she bought a water purifier from them in the year 2015. At the time of sale of the product, the opposite party was the authorised agent of Eureka Forbes in Palakkad. The opposite party was the service provider for the complainant and they timely and regularly serviced the water purifier and the complainant was satisfied with the service provided by the opposite party.
Eureka Forbes Company stopped their service with the opposite party and after that also they continued to provide service to the complainant.
The machine installed by the opposite party became defective in the year 2020 and the opposite party informed the complainant that the parts of the machine are not available in open market and they have to approach the Eureka Forbes company directly to get it repaired. But the complainant wanted to exchange the water purifier and asked the opposite party to exchange it with the brand “I PURE”. The actual price of the water purifier was Rs.9,500/-; but considering that the complainant was one of their esteemed customer, the opposite party had given a discount of Rs.3,500/- to her.
The complainant after being satisfied with the quality of the product paid Rs. 6,000/- The machine is still used by the complainant and no dispute is raised with regard to the quality of the water or the functioning of the machine. The complainant did not ask for Aqua Guard machine and the opposite party did not conceal or make any misrepresentation. It is very well known to the complainant that the machine which was installed in complainant’s house is of the brand “I PURE”.
This complaint is filed for getting illegal enrichment from the opposite party after using the machine for more than one year and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs?
- Reliefs if any as cost & compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A3 are marked from her side. Opposite party did not file proof affidavit and their evidence was closed.
6. Point No: 1
Complainant avers that she purchased a Eureka Forbes Aqua Guard water purifier Aquaflo DX in the year 2015. The opposite party represented them as the authorised service centre of Eureka Forbes and on that belief the complainant entered into AMC with them for a period from 07/10/2018 to 06/10/2021. On August 2020, the product stopped functioning and the service personnel of opposite party after inspecting it informed the complainant that its board is defective and needs to be changed. Later opposite party informed her that the spare part is not available and made an exchange offer with storage type of water purifier made of Eureka Forbes. The opposite party installed the machine when the complainant was not at home and only after few days she came to know that the product is of some other brand. When she contacted the Eureka Forbes company, they informed that they have no connection with the opposite party and the opposite party is misusing their brand name.
7. The opposite party in their version admitted that they have installed the water purifier in complainant’s house in the year 2015 and at that time the opposite party was the authorised agent of Eureka Forbes in Palakkad. The opposite party was the service provider of the complainant and they provided timely service to the complainant and continued their service even after discontinuation of agency of Eureka Forbes. Later the product became defective and they informed the complainant that they have to directly approach Eureka Forbes company for spare parts. But the complainant wanted to exchange her product with a new one. As per her request the opposite party installed a machine of brand “I PURE” and from the total cost of Rs.9,500/- they have given a discount of Rs. 3,500/- The machine is still working in good condition and the complainant had not raised any dispute with regard to its functioning or quality of water. They did not make any misrepresentation and the complainant purchased the product and paid the money only after being satisfied with the product.
8. Complainant produced 3 documents. Ext. A1 is the contract receipt dated 07/10/2018 issued by opposite party showing the receipt of Rs.3,900/- towards service contract of the product. Ext. A2 is the bill dated 28/01/2021 issued by opposite party for the purchase of water purifier by brand name “I PURE” for an amount of Rs. 6,000/- after deducting discount of Rs. 3,500/- from the total prize of Rs.9,500/- These bills issued by the opposite party only shows the name of the opposite party concern as ‘Aquaro Services’. Nowhere in the bill, they have mentioned that they are the authorized agents of Eureka Forbes. Complainant cannot simply allege that the opposite party represented themselves as agents of Eureka Forbes and forced them to purchase a new product. She has to prove her contention by adducing cogent evidence.
9. Secondly Ext. A2 bill clearly states the name of the brand as “I PURE”. As per complainant, new machine was installed on 28/01/2021 and the bill is also issued on the same date. Being an educated person, the complainant ought to have checked the details of the product which she bought. The story that at the time of installation, she was not at home; so she couldn’t see the sales package or product details which the opposite party took back after installation and she came to know that the water purifier is of some other brand and not a Eureka Forbes aqua guard water purifier only after few days is unbelievable.
10. Ext. A2 clearly shows the brand name, the discount given, total cost etc. So the contention put forward by the opposite party appears to be more probable. Further the complainant did not have any case that the new machine installed by the opposite party is not working. Her only complaint is regarding the brand of the product. It is her duty as a ‘Consumer’ to understand the details including brand, quality, prize etc. of the product which she intends to purchase. She did not adduce any evidence to prove that opposite party represented themselves as agent of Eureka Forbes and sold the product making her believe that the product is a brand of Eureka Forbes Aqua Guard.
11. Regarding the contention of availability of spare parts with Eureka Forbes Company, opposite party also admitted that the board is not available in open market and can be purchased directly from the company. So from the evidence before hand, we could not find any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. So Point No: 1 is decided in favour of opposite party.
12. Points 2 & 3
In view of the findings in Point No: 1, there is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. So the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of February, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 – Invoice for Service contract issued by Aquaro Services Dater 07/10/2018.
Ext. A2 – Bill issued by Aquaro Services dated 28/01/2021 for new water purifier.
Ext. A3 – Estimate issued by Eureka Forbes service centre dated 26/02/2021 for the repair of faulty part.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: NIL
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost- Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
