BHAGIRATHI VERMA Vs. EUREKA FORBES LTD.
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
EUREKA FORBES LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
J.D.KAPOOR, J -
(1.) ON account of having not been provided the agreed service in respect of Aquaguard water -filter -cum -purifier by the respondent -company, the District Forum
vide impugned order dated 17.3.1997 has held the respondent guilty for
deficiency in service and directed the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.
700 out of the contracted amount of Rs. 900 and also directed to pay Rs. 200 as compensation and Rs. 300 towards cost of litigation. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred
(2.) THOUGH according to the appellant, he purchased the Aquaguard water -filter -cum -purifier from the agent of the respondent company on the
assurance that life time free service of the purifier would be provided
but subsequently this assurance was found to be false and he entered into
a three years service contract with the respondent on payment of
consideration of Rs. 900. According to this contract, three periodical
services per year as well as technical replacement of the candle and
other spare parts free of charge were to be provided. According to the
respondent, under the annual maintenance contract from 11.11.1992 to
10.11.1995, the respondent company provided the first service on 11.11.1992 and second service on 31.12.1993 and last service on 26.4.1994 free of charge.
(3.) THERE is no dispute that service due in July, 1994 was not provided. According to the respondent, this service could not be provided
due to the exit of the operating service franchises in that area and they
had already referred to the appellant to extend the contract of the unit
for further 18 months from the date of the expiry of the present contract
i.e., 11.11.1995 to 10.5.1997 which was refused by the appellant.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that District Forum has returned finding of the fact which we do not feel inclined to interfere
that due to the delayed appointment of the agents in the area and
non -provision of the contractual service except two during the contract
period, respondent was guilty of deficiency in service. If the appellant
was found guilty of deficiency in service, in our view, the District
Forum should have awarded adequate compensation. We allow the appeal by
awarding a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,000 which shall include the cost
of litigation. This payment shall be made by the respondent within one
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.