IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of September, 2016
Filed on 02.06.2016
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.179//2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. T. John The Service Manager
Sharon Saji Bhavanam Eureka Forbes Ltd.
Chirakkadavam Customer Service Division
Kayamkulam P.O. Building No.KC VIII/0490/530A
Alappuzha – 690 502 Sree Padmam, Near Sarada
Madom, Kollam – 691 001
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in precisely as follows:-
The complainant on 21st January 2014 availed an ‘Annual Maintenance Contract’ from the opposite party. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.3675/- to the opposite party for the same. The said service contract was for a period of three years viz. up to 20th January 2017. The complainant joined the aforesaid scheme only on the persuading assurances of the opposite party as to prompt and timely service. The opposite party at the time of caused the complainant entering the material service contract made him believe that every year during the first six months the carbon of the purifier could be replaced, and within the next six months both the carbon and candle of the devise would be substituted. Notwithstanding such assurances, the opposite party has not been keen on keeping the word. In 2014, two services were affected and in 2015 lone service was carried out. That apart, the opposite party never made it a point either to replace any parts or to carry out services after 2015 when the maintenance contract is in force until 2017. The water tapped from the purifier appears precariously coloured and strangely still the opposite party did not make any response, though they are being contacted on umpteen occasions. The complainant and his family were facing health hazards. The omissions and commissions of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service, the complainant contends. On being aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. Notwithstanding the notice being served, the opposite party did not turn up nor did challenge the complainant’s case. Resultantly, the opposite party was set ex-parte.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and the document Ext.A1 was marked.
4. Holding the complainant’s contentions in view, the questions that crop up for consideration are:-
1) Whether the complainant availed ‘Annual Maintenance Contract’ from the opposite party?
2) Whether the opposite party rendered service as agreed?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. The complainant’s specific case is that the complainant had availed an ‘Annual Maintenance Contract’ from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.3,675/-. Thereafter the opposite party has not carried out the services as agrees to the complainant. The complainant was made to join the said ‘Maintenance Scheme’ on tendering tempting promises as to prompt service by the opposite party. Notwithstanding the same, the opposite party carried out mere namesake services that too only in the early stages of the contract period. Thereafter the opposite party did not make it a point to affect any service or replace any of the parts of the purifier as promised. The water now coming from the purifier seems discoloured causing health hazards to the complainant and his family. On several occasions the complainant contacted the opposite party in vain. The complainant filed proof affidavit affirming his case candidly. The Ext.A1 document clearly evinces that the complainant has availed ‘Annual Maintenance Contract’ (AMC) from the opposite party, and the same is in force till 2017. As we have already observed the opposite party was reluctant to turn up before this Forum or contend the complainant’s probable case which has been more furthered by the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 receipt. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant’s case stands well-substantiated. We need hardly say, the complainant is entitled to relief.
In the wake of what have been elaborated supra, the opposite party is directed to repair the purifier to perfection failing which opposite party shall refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,675/- (Rupees three thousand six hundred and seventy five only) with 12% from the date of filing the instant complaint till the payment of the same. The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as cost. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Invoice cum receipt dated 21.1.2014
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
