RAJU KR. filed a consumer case on 19 Oct 2016 against UREKA FOBUS in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/38/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Mar 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 38 / 2015
Date of Institution 15/01/2015
Order Reserved on 19/10/2016
Date of Order 21/10/2016
In matter of
Mr Raju Verma adult
R/o 2576 Gali no. 15
Kailash Nagar,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110051………………………….……..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-The Service Manager
Ureka Forbes Ltd.
Swatantra Enterprises, 180 J, Ex.
Gali No. 5, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
2-The Manager Head,
Ureka Forbes Ltd,
Scheduled no. 42, P3/C Munesar Layout
Harlukunta Kundu ,Bangaluru 560068
3 The Manager Head,
B1, B2, 201 Mairathan Ennova Office
Ganpatroa, Kardam Marg,
Lower PArel, Mumbai 400013 ……………………………………… Opponents
Complainant……………………………………In Person
Opponent ……....…………………………….. Ex Parte
Quorum - Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant purchased one RO system from Eureka Forbes for a sum of Rs 13,000/ on 19/05/2006. Complainant was taking AMC regularly. He stated that there were no problem in the said RO till Nov, 2011. Complainant took AMC for two years from OP 1 from 16/02/2014 to 16/02/2016. The AMC charges were paid by complainant through cheque no. 597441 of PNB bank and the same was cashed by Eureka Forbes Ltd.
Later, RO water developed problem and getting bad taste in the drinking water in Nov. 2011. He lodged complaint on customer care no., who assured for an early service. On 20/11/2014, one service engineer came and attended complaint and complainant alleged that instead of changing new candle, an old candle was fitted. There was no result even after the service done by the OP1.
On 05/12/2014, again com plaint was lodged by complaint for the same problem, but none of the service mechanic came nor attended the complaint. As the problem was not rectified in two months and further stated that his family suffered from Jaundice and was purchasing water cannon. He also gave legal notice on 27/01/2014, but no reply was given. Despite of taking two years AMC, OP did not provided its services which had caused lot of financial and physical harassment. Hence, filed this complaint and claimed a sum of Rs 50,000/- for harassment and business loss.
Notice was served but, none appeared for OP nor were evidences submitted. Case was preceded Ex Parte and complainant filed his Ex Parte evidences on affidavit.
Arguments were heard and order was reserved. By scrutinizing the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that complainant had purchased one RO system in 2006 and he was not taking AMC regularly. Under AMC in 2013, OP had changed adopter, elbow free of cost and did service.
Then under AMC from 26/02/2014 to 25/02/2016, sediment, Candle of carbon and membrane was replaced on 20/11/2014 and earlier also service was done as per OP terms and conditions. Complainant was satisfied and had put his signature on the “service request sheet showing confirmation of free service. There was no complaint thereafter even before the filing of this complaint on 15/01/2015 as there were no evidence pertaining to problem of foul smelling or any other related damages. More so, complainant had stated that his family suffered from Jaundice due to bad drinking water from the RO and had to purchase the drinking water from market. Complainant had not submitted any hospital treatment papers pertaining to the Jaundice treatment due to faulty water and also no cash memo for purchasing water bottles daily for his family. Changing of water filter membrane and carbon candle is done routinely under the AMC and frequent services are required due to hard water being taken from ground and some times, defects in the water line and illegal connection done in the main water lines which caused mixing of infected water when continuous use of electric motor for sucking water from corporation’s main water line. Even under AMC, required parts were replaced free of cost by OP.
We are of the opinion that this complaint has no merit and be dismissed with cost, so the complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs 2000/-.
The complainant is directed to be deposited the cost in the Consumer Legal Aid account maintained by this Forum within 30 days from the receiving of order copy. If direction is not complied within the time essence, awarded cost shall have 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur (Dr) P N Tiwari
Member Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh
President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.