ASHOK GOEL filed a consumer case on 11 Mar 2022 against M/S EUREKA FORBED LIMITED in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/233/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 16 Mar 2022.
Delhi
New Delhi
CC/233/2018
ASHOK GOEL - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S EUREKA FORBED LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)
11 Mar 2022
ORDER
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.CC. 233/2018 Dated:
In the matter of:
Ashok Goel
S/o Late Sh. B.R. Goel
8, Ashoka House, Central Lane, Bengali Market,
New Delhi-110001 ....COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/s Eureka Forbes Limited
7, Chakraberia Road (South)
Kolkata-700025, West Bengal.
Also at:
B/1, B/2,701
Marathon Innova
Off GanpatraoKadamMarg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013,
Maharashtra .....OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum:
Ms. PoonamChaudhry, President
Shri.Bariq Ahmad, Member
Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member
Dated of Institution : 06.06.2018
Date of Order : 11.03.2022
ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER
ORDER
File taken up by Video Conferencing
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (in short OP) under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that in the month of July, 2016, the complainant was approached by the one official of OP for providing services including the replacement of filter, if required to a water Purifier Model Aquaguard Infiniti installed at the complainant’s residence. The complainant agreed to avail the said services and paid Rs. 3190/- on 06.07.2016 to the OP’s representative who, in turn, issued Invoice cum Contract receipt to that effect. It is further stated that the said conract was for the period of two years i.e. from 06.07.2016 to 05.07.2017. It is further alleged that in the month of June,2017, the OP changed the filter candle of the said water purifier but the same was defective and was not purifying the water properly. Thereupon, the complainant made complaint tp the Op regarding such defect but OP did not give any response. After several complaints, on 16.03.2018, the representaive of OP visited the complainant place and inspite of suggestions of the complaiant regarding the change of filter candle, he did not change the filter. Therafter, the complainant tried to contact the OP but his grievances were not addressed. Hence , the complainantThereafter, the complainant sent legal notice to OP on 21.03.2018 raising his grievances. The OP sent his reply to the notive through email and registered a complaint and also assured the complainant that their technician will visit the complainant within two working days. As no one appeared, the complainant sent several reminders regarding the technician visit to which the OP sent their apologies for inconvenience and assurances for solution. Since despite of assurances, no solution was provided, the complainant sent reminder of legal notice on 28.04.2018. Upon which, the OP again promised to resolve the issue within two days. When, the OP again failed resolve the issue and the complainant was suffering on account of drinking unpurified water, in the month of May, 2018, the complainant had to replace the Filter through third party after paying Rs.2880/- for Replacement of Filter which also includes Labour charges for maintenance of water purifier. The complainant alleged that due to neglience of the OP, he alongwith his family members was forced to intake impure water for several months and suffered mental agony and pain.
Hence, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint and prayed that the OP be directed to refund the Invoice amount of Rs.3190/-with interest and to pay Rs. 2880/-,the cost of new filter and labour charges and Rs. 5,500/- cost for legal notice.The complainant has also prayed a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical pain, agony, harrassment and the cost of litigation.
Despite the service of notice, none had appeared on behalf of OP, the OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19/02/2019.
The complainant filed his ex parte evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint. The complainant has relied on copies of Invoice cum Contract and Service Request Report, Copy of legal Notice, Copy of Bill of Filter Candle and the Correspondences between the parties.
We have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record of the case.
From the unrebutted averments and evidence placed on record by the complainant, it is proved that there was a valid subsisting contract between the complainant and the OP was under obligation to provide services including the replacement of filter. On perusal of the document Invoice cum Contract receipt, it is evident to us that the said contract was entered into for a period of two years i.e. from 06.07.2016 to 05.07.2017 and the sum ofRs. 3190/- were received by the OP from complainant. On careful perusal of the material on record including the communication taken place beteen the parties, it is further proved that the OP has been negligient in discharging their obligationstowards the complainant as undertaken by the OP under a valid and effective contract.The complainant has also averred that on account of failure of OP to replace the filter, the complainant had to replace the Filter through third party after paying Rs.2880/- which also includes Labour charges and charges for maintenance of water purifier. On perusal of the file, we find that the complainant has filed a Copy of Bill of Filter Candle of Rs. 880/- only. The complainant has not filed any document in support of rest of the amount of Rs. 2000/- as claimed towards labour charges and maintenance of water purifier. therefore, the complainant’s claim for remaining amount of Rs.2000/- is taken as not proved in the absence of any documentary proof. However, it is clearly evident from the record including the various emails exchanged between the complainant and OP that the complainant made the complaint several times in respect of the defectiveness of the Filter candle during the subsistence of the valid contract and the Op failed to attend to the complaints of the complainantand resolve the issue.
In our considered view, the aforesaid facts certainly amount to mal tradepractice, gross dereliction of duty and deficiency of services on the part of OP and on account of that the Complainant and his family had to face serious trouble and mental agony for a considerable period.
In view of the unrebutted testimony of the complainant regarding deficiency of services, we are of the considered view that OP miserably failed indischarging their obligation under a valid and subsisting contract.
Thus, we hold that OP insurance company is guilty of deficiency of services, and direct as under:-.
OP is directed toreturnto the complainant a sum of Rs. 3190/- (Rs. Three thousand One hundred and Ninety only) alongwith 6% simple interestp.a from the date of execution of the contract till realization.
The OP is further directed to pay Rs. 880/- towards the expenses incurred for purchasing filter candle.
On account mental agony and harassment, OP will pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation.
OP will payRs. 7,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of litigation.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the this order. In case of delay of payment, OP is liable to pay interest @ 9% simple interest p.a.for the delayed period.
A Copy of this Order be supplied to all the parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.
File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of order.
(POONAM CHAUDHRY)
President
(BARIQ AHMAD) (ADARSH NAIN)
Member Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.