Compensation for services not rendered

In separate incidents, two consumer durables manufacturers were ordered to compensate customers for delayed and negligent service.

In a complaint to the consumer redressal forum, K. Venugopal, a resident of Kambar Nagar, said he paid Rs. 7,790 on July 28, 2009, by way of cheque for the purchase of a vacuum cleaner. Though he was promised that the vacuum cleaner would be delivered in the first week of August, the sales representatives failed to do so despite repeated requests.

Following this, the complainant issued a legal notice asking Eureka Forbes to deliver the vacuum cleaner or return money with interest. But there was no response from the company. Hence, Mr. Venugopal filed a plea seeking to direct the company to pay compensation.

However, the counsel for Eureka Forbes contended that the complaint was not maintainable. When the vacuum cleaner was taken to the complainant’s house, but it could not be delivered since the house was locked. Subsequently, it was delivered at a later date, the counsel said.

Concluding that the consumer durables firm was negligent and its service, deficient, the District Consumer Redressal Forum pointed out that only after receiving a notice from the forum, had the vacuum cleaner been delivered to the complainant on October 18, 2010.

As such it was evident that they took nearly 15 months to deliver the vacuum cleaner subsequent to the receipt of money from the complainant.

The forum ordered Eurekha Forbes to pay Rs. 15,000 to the complainant as compensation towards delayed delivery of vacuum cleaner, and another sum of Rs. 5,000 towards its cost.

In another case, the consumer forum ordered a water purifier company to compensate a consumer for a defective water purifier.

The forum also directed it to either replace the water purifier or refund a sum of Rs. 11,500 with interest at 12 per cent from September 8, 2010, till date of payment. It also ordered the company to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,000 as compensation.

The forum gave the order on a complaint from M.S. Girithara of Sowcarpet who purchased an Aqua Pure Plus water purifier on September 8, 2010 for Rs. 11,500, and found it to be defective.

More In: Chennai