BHAGIRATHI VERMA Vs. EUREKA FORBES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(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 this appeal.

(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.