Delhi

North East

CC/115/2015

Mr. Rajiv Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vansh Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 115/15

 

CORAM:       Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Sharma

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi

                        Hon’ble Member Manju Bala Sharma

 

In the matter of:

Rajiv Sood

S/o Mr. Subhash Sood

1157/A, Hari Om Street,

Babarpur, Shahdara,

Delhi-110032                                                                                                 Complainant                                       

           

Versus

 

1. Vansh Enterprises

A-6, South Anarkali Bandh Gali,

Delhi-110051

 

2. Service Headquarters

Schedule No.42,

P-3/C, Muneshwara Layout

Haralukunte,

Kudlu, Bangalore-560068

India                                                                                               Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                      DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30-03-2015

                                                                                      DATE OF DECISION      : 06-01-2016

Order

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Manju Bala Sharma, Member:-

 

As per complaint complainant purchased a service contract from Eureka Forbes for three years w.e.f. 09/04/2012 to 08/04/2015, on payment of Rs.3,310/-.  As per the contract OPs were to provide six services during the tenure of service contract, by providing two services each year.  But only three services were provided.  Complainant made, a number of calls and sent so many SMS to the OPs for further service but they did not respond.  About 50 calls were not even received by OP barring few which were even not taken care of / attended by OPs. Due to not providing service, family of the complainant  had to drink impurified and unhygienic water leading to stomach infection to his children and mother in law.  Not only this switch of the purifier was not working properly.  Complaint whereof was also made to OP’s officials whenever they visited for service thrice. But even after promises, the same was not changed. As per contract OP had to change it free of cost. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, complainant has prayed for, strict action against the alleged behaviour of the OPs, refund Rs.3,310/-, with Rs.50,000/- against medical expenses and litigation cost of Rs. 18,000/-.

OPs were served but nobody appeared, on their behalf, and filed reply. Hence vide order dated 31.08.2015 both OPs were proceeded against ex parte.

Affidavit of evidence alongwith relevant documents filed by the complainant.

Heard and perused the record.

The documents filed by the complainant are invoice-cum-service contract receipt No.10 Exhibit C-1, copy of invoice/bill No.002062 dated 21.12.2007  Exhibit C-2, print out of SMS  dated 12-3-15, 14-3-15, 15-3-15 and 16-3-15 between the parties Exhibit C-3, copy of medical prescriptions of the son of the complainant  Exhibit C-4 and copies of medical treatment and reports of the mother-in-law of the complainant Exhibit C-5. 

Perusal of these documents establishes the averments of complainant that there was the contract of service between the two, complainant paid Rs. 3310/- to OP complaints and OP’s failure to attend/ provide services, short coming in the water purifier in providing pure and hygienic water.       “Regarding claim for medical expenses Exhibit C-4 shows that son of complainant was suffering from bronchitis.  It is a common belief that bronchitis is not caused due to consumption of impurified and unhygienic water.  Exhibit C-5 show that mother-in-law of complainant was suffering from F/s/o Gastritis n Lt renal calculus which can be caused due to consumption of unhygienic and impurified water.

Thus, complainant has established his case while OP failed to controvert the same. Hence complainant’s case is deemed to be proved.

On the basis of above findings holding OP guilty for deficiency in service and harassment we allow the refund of cost for unattend three free services i.e. Rs. 1650/-. Regarding medical expenses as no statement and/or documents to this effect is available on record we are inclined to award Rs. 15,000/- as compensation only for the harassment and suffering of complainant. We also award Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost.

This order shall be complied by the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing on Rs. 1650/- an interest shall be charged @ 12% per annum from the date of its receipts by OP.

Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.  

File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 06-01-2016. 

 

           

                  On Leave           

             (N.K. Sharma)                (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)          (Manju Bala Sharma)             

              President                              Member                                 Member