State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Eureka Forbes Ltd. vs Jayshree Bandopant Chougle on 30 November, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/15/06
(Arising out of order dated 22/04/2014 passed by D.F. Pune in CC/10/518)
Eureka Forbes Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representative
B1/B2, 701, 7th floor,Marathon Innova
Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 .....Appellant
Versus
Jayshree Bandopant Chougle
Swapnapurti, Prabhat Road .........Respondent
Lane no.8, Pune 411 004
BEFORE: JusticeA.P.Bhangale, President
A.K.Zade, Member
ORDER
Per - Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
This appeal challenges the validity and legality of the impugned judgment and award dated 22/04/2014 passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.CC/10/518. We had adjourned this appeal by way of last chance when on 13/10/2017, respondent remained absent and none was present on behalf of her.
Heard Mr.Rohan Sonawane-Advocate for appellant. It appears that the learned District Forum had passed an award on the basis of the report tendered at the Bar by one Advocate Chandane representing the complainant on 10/04/2013. The documents tendered were considered without giving an opportunity of hearing or reply to the appellant. It pertains to report prepared on the basis of samples of water taken in absence of any representative on behalf of the appellant and on that basis holding that the quality of water was defective, award came to be passed against the appellant. According to learned advocate for the appellant, complainant is one of the many consumers, who had purchased water purifier from the appellant known as 'Aqua Guard Compact Water Purifier', which complainant purchased for sum of Rs.7590/- by payment made by cheque dated 18/08/2009. It is case of the complainant that after installation of the produce, she had experienced pains and she had to take medical treatment in Niramay Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune during the period between 30/03/2010 to 02/04/2010. Though complainant stated that she suffered illness due to impure water, there is no documentary evidence to support such contention. In fact, according to complainant the documents produced by her from Niramay Hospital indicated diagnosis mentioned as 'Vertigo /DM', which has no relevance to consumption of alleged impure water. Complainant had felt giddiness, nausea and was admitted. The disease Vertigo according to learned advocate for the appellant cannot be caused by impure water but it is subtype of dizziness in which a patient inappropriately experiences the perception of motion due to dysfunction of the vestibular system, often associated with nausea and vomiting as well as a balance disorder, causing difficulties with standing or walking. He pointed out that there are three types of Vertigo. The first is known as objective and describes when the patient has the sensation that objects in the environment are moving. The second type of Vertigo is known as subjective and refers to when the patient feels as it he or she is moving and the third type is known as pseudo vertigo, an intensive sensation of rotation inside the patient's head.
Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that this ailment has no connection whatsoever with consumption of alleged impure drinking water. Regarding the bonafide of the appellant, it is submitted that appellant themselves have offered inspection of the quality of water at the residence of the complainant and, accordingly, taking permission of the Learned Forum below on 20/06/2012, the Service In-charge representing the appellant had obtained samples and the test report showing that water at the residence of the complainant was potable. The test report in respect of three samples taken from the residence of the respondent/complainant were produced with parameters tested as, 'Colour -Colourless, Turbidity 04, pH 7.6', that is within permissible limits. Thus the water was found potable. This report prepared by Mr.Vishal Doke for Eureka Forbes Ltd. was ignored by the Learned Forum below. While report tendered at the instance of the complainant through her advocate without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant was considered by the Learned Forum below, so as to record the finding against the appellant.
We have considered the material produced before us including copies of notings in the Learned Forum below. We are satisfied that the impugned judgment and order for the reasons stated above is not sustainable. Of course, we have no opportunity of hearing the respondent but since last chance was granted to argue the appeal and appeal was fixed for final hearing today, we proceed to consider the material produced before us in the form of copies of documents annexed along with appeal memo. In our view, the ailment which complainant had suffered and for which she received medical treatment in the Niramay Hospital did not have any relevance to the water purifier bought by her from the appellant. Regarding the potability of water, appellant had shown bonafides to file test report in respect of water at the residence of the complainant and it was found within permissible limits. On the other hand, the report tendered at the instance of the complainant was in respect of samples which were taken in absence of any representative of the appellant. Appellant cannot be bound by such samples or such report prepared in absence of representative of the appellant so as to be answerable to the award passed by the Learned Forum below. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned judgment and order is not sustainable. We therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order and allow the appeal accordingly. Consumer complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 30th November, 2017.
[JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [A.K.ZADE] MEMBER Ms