Tribunals and Commissions(2005) 09 NCDRC CK 0014

Eureka Forbes vs Damyanti Vohra

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 26 September 2005 · Citation: 2005 4 CPJ 346 : 2006 1 CPR 285

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.D.KAPOOR , MAHESH CHANDRA J.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 541 words
1.

APPELLANT is a manufacturer of aqua guard water purifier. A scheme was launched for sale of the filters for life long free service at its service centres all over India. The respondent availed the said scheme and purchased a water filter for Rs. 7,250 on 31.3.1999, but after the ordinary warranty period of one year, the filter developed defect. The respondent wanted the mechanic of the appellant to provide service at his residence whereas the appellant insisted him for bringing the water filter at the service centre.

2.

FEELING aggrieved, the respondent approached the District Forum and obtained an impugned order dated 24.10.2002 directing the appellant to provide the service at the place of installation of the water filter as and when the complaint is made and also pay Rs. 500 as cost of litigation and Rs. 500 as compensation for harassment of the complainant. Through this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no life long service scheme and any endorsement made on the receipt by its sales agent made to that effect did not bind the appellant and that terms of contract were spelt out in the manual of the product copy of which was furnished to the respondent at the time of sale and secondly, that the service was to be provided at the nearest service centre all over India and not at the residence.

3.

SO far as the first contention is concerned, we do not find any substance as it was under the scheme of life long free service that the product was sold and, therefore, to say that the appellant Company was not obliged to provide life long free service after the warranty period is false. Such schemes are floated in order to augment and promote the sale of the products and if promises are not kept the consumers feel duped and left high and dry.

4.

AS regards the plea that the service is provided at the nearest service centre. We feel inclined to accept the contention in view of the nature of the product. The very concept of opening the service centre means that the product is taken to the said centre. Insistence of the respondent that the service be provided at his residence was uncalled for as in the brochure and the manual it is specifically mentioned that the consumers will get life long free service whenever they contact at the nearest service centre in all over India. In the result, we partly allow the appeal by setting aside the direction to provide the service at the place of installation and maintain the rest of the order for life long free service as this was the only attraction for consumers to purchase the product. It is made clear that whenever the respondent takes the water filter at the service centre, the service will be provided free of cost.

5.

THE Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities.

6.

A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. Appeal partly allowed. -