EUREKA FORBES LTD vs Renu Vaish

-ON the complaint of the respondent on the defective R. O. system sold by the appellant the District Forum has vide its order dated 9. 5. 2007 directed the appellant to instal a system which works where TDS in the water is lower and also to pay Rs. 5,000 for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the respondent and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.

FEELING aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. At the outset, the Counsel for the appellant contended that it is an ex parte order and no opportunity was given to the appellant to present its case and secondly that the job card shows that on various occasions services were rendered free of charge and whatever little defect was there it was immediately rectified. It is also contended that the respondent did not complain that at the time of installation the TDS was only 340 whereas the job cards show that it was 1100 on 16. 5. 2005 and the main complaint was against the membrane which was changed after 18 months.

It is not understandable as to why should a consumer go on making complaints about non-functioning of the machine like RO System on day-to-day basis and forced to approach District Forum, which involves not only time and inconvenience, mental agony and harassment but expenses to be incurred, if there is grievance of serious nature or the defects are pointed out these should be rectified immediately on receiving the complaint.

MERELY because the TDS on 16. 5. 2005 was 100 is not the circumstance the RO System was working properly and had no complaint because the history sheet produced by the appellant shows that it was only on 16. 5. 2005 that the TDS input was noted whereas on as many as 10 occasions subsequent thereto no TDS was recorded. However, according to the respondent the system did not work and when she approached the appellant for replacement of the defective RO System she was advised to get E-boiling Aqua Guard on additional payment of Rs. 3,500 which she declined. The functioning and working of any goods and that too a brand new goods has to be tested on the anvil of the definition of the word "defect" provided by Section 2 (1) (f) which means "any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract, express or implied) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. "

IN the given facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.