DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.19 of 2023
Rajendra Kumar Mahapatra, S/o. Hadibandhu Mahapatra, aged about 42 years, R/o. Raigurupada, Sonepur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur,
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. Ananda Kumar Meher, Prop. Satyam Enterprises, Bus Stand, Sonepur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur,
2. C.E.O., Whirlpool India Ltd., At – Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122 002, Phone No.+91 124 4591300, Website www.whirlpoolindia.com, e-mail writetoceo@whirlpool.com.
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri R.S. Meher
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 …………. Sri R. Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.2 …………. Sri Hari Ram Kedia
Present
1. Sri U.N. Purohit, President
2. Sri H. Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.20.04.2023
Date of Hearing Dt.17.10.2023
Date of Order Dt.13.11.2023
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri U.N.Purohit, P.
Complaint filed complaint U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. Claiming reliefs to replace the machine with new machine of same model or refund the consideration amount with interest. The amount for repair be returned with interest. The amount spent by the complainant for the harm caused by the O.Ps. amounting to Rs.30,000/-. Compensation for mental agony and harm caused for defective product under product liability action Rs.50,000/- , Cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.
The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased one washing machine from the O.P. No.1 on 29.10.2020 for a consideration of Rs.22,800/- from his shop located Sonepur Bus stand. the O.P. No 1 is the dealer of product, manufactured by O.P. No 2. The Complainant purchased Washing Machine SW ULTRA 7.5 SC 31346 Whirlpool W/M S/N 3134601191104181 from O.P. No.1 on his special assurance and guarantee besides the O.P. No.2 as per warranty card issued with the delivery of product. The O.P. No.1 assured the
-: 2 :-
complainant that he is responsible for any damage, repair, replacement and other effective service while selling the product. During the warranty period given by the O.Ps. the machine found defective and made complaint to the O.P. No.1 who assured and advised to repair the same by service engineer of O.P. No.2. Once and again the service engineer came to the house and repaired number of time. The engineer replaces number of spares from the machine and took charges for the same though the machine was under the warranty. It was the duty of both the O.Ps. to provide free service and replace the damage spare parts within warranty period. The complainant had paid to service engineer, about Rs.10000/- for repair of the washing machine from phone pay account and by cash the screen short of payment available with the complainant, some payment made by cash the receipt of the same not given by the service engineer. The report of service by the engineer deputed by the O.P. also not supplied, except the service report of the Service Engineer namely Padnava Sahu on Dated 26.2.2023. The report shows machine not working and received of spare charges Rs.4216/- .
The service engineer orally stated the machine could not be repaired as it was manufacturing defect, which cannot be solved unless replaced the machine. But the service engineer did not give in writing as he is under the control of the company on 26.2.2023. There after the complainant claimed to refund the consideration or replace the machine, to which the O.P. No.1 denied to replace or to refund the consideration amount by saying that he is not responsible after sale of the product; it is the company responsible for the same. The O.P No.1 also told that you have not used Ariel washing powder which was condition given at the time of selling of the product with leaflet. The condition imposed by the O.Ps. under restrictive trade practice for selling another product. The complainant being influenced by the O.Ps. used the same while using the machine. Due to such condition the O.Ps. are also liable under restrictive trade practice.
The complainant made several complaints through customer care of the O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 also did not take proper step and provide proper service as such they are liable under product liability action under consumer protection act. The complainant sustained mental pain and for that his health deteriorated day by day being affected by head ache and mental imbalance for the loss and spent about Rs.20,000/- for medicine and diagnostic by the physician. So the harm caused to the complainant for the defective product, the O.P. s are liable under product liability action and liable for compensation to the complainant.
-: 3 :-
The cause of action arose on 26.2.2023 when the service engineer told the complainant that the machine is not repairable and on subsequent date when the O.P. No.1 denied for replacement and refund of consideration. The complainant files documents. Tax in voice vide No. 395 dated 29.10.2020,Whatsapp correspondence screens short 4 sheets, Receipt of service engineer on dated 26.2.2023, Phone pay screen short 3 sheets, Medical report 9 sheets, Warranty card, Leaflets user manual and Ready reference guide.
The opposite parties appeared and filed their version, the gist of version of O.P. No.1 is that, the O.P. admitted sale of the product in question receiving consideration after proper verification and testing. The O.P. No.2 the manufacturer of the product, issued warranty on said product as per the term and condition mentioned in the warranty card. On receiving the complaint from the complainant the O.P. No.1 lodged immediate online complaint to O.P. No.2 and service engineer of O.P. No.2 visited the house of complainant and removed the defect. There after there was no complaint received by O.P. No.1 regarding the defect of the product at any point of time till the service of notice of this commission. The other allegation made in the complaint is denied by O.P. No.1. The complaint is filed by the complainant to pressurize and to extract money and to defame the O.P. No.1. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice on the part of O.P. No.1. There is no cause of action and the complainant is not entitled any relief and the case is not maintainable in the eye of law.
The gist of version of O.P. No.2 is that the allegation made in complaint totally denied by the O.P. No.2 and admitted the O.P. No.1 is dealer of O.P. No.2 and the dealer sold the product to the complainant, receiving of consideration, and admitted the cause of action on the ground that the cause of action much after of warranty period given under warranty condition. The O.P. No.2 also admitted that he sent technician to the premises of the complainant on receiving service request No.BHU13012366360 and the technician after scrutiny found the PCB of said machine not functioning due to rate bite. Since the warranty period of said machine was expired on 20.10.2022 the engineer asked to pay the cost of new PCB to which the complainant denied, so the service request was cancelled. Again on 16.2.2023 on service request No BHU14022326318 the technician visited the premises changed the PCB of the machine and received Rs.4112/- cost of said PCB. Giving Rs.4,216/- by the complainant is wrong and baseless. The O.P. No.2 is reputed international company and has not committed any laches or negligence in service.
-: 4 :-
On perusal of complaint version and documents filed by both the parties the following question needs to answer for proper adjudication of the case
- Is the complainant a consumer ?
- Is there any cause of action ?
- Is the product covering any warranty ?
- Is the product suffering any defect during the warranty period?
- Is there any deficiency on the part of O.Ps. ?
- Is the complainant entitled to any relief as claimed ?
For proper adjudication of the case all the question taken together :-
To prove the case, the complainant himself files affidavit evidence, documents as per list andto disprove case of the complainant the O.P. No.1 filed affidavit evidence and the O.P. No.2 filed only document annexed with the version as annexure 1
As it appears from the complaint, affidavit of complainant and O.P. No.1 as well as Tax invoice No.395 dated 29.10.2023. The complainant purchased the washing machine SW ULTRA 7.5 SC 31346 Whirlpool W/M S/N 3134601191104181 on payment of consideration of Rs.22,800/- from the dealer O.P. No.1 for his personal use, as such the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act 2019, which is also not disputed by the O.Ps.
As it appears from the complaint and version of O.P. No.2, the cause of action of the complaint is admitted by the O.Ps. and the O.P. No.2 specifically admitted the cause of action in para 8 of his version, so no need to decide the cause of action as it is not disputed by the O.P. No.2 and claims that the date of cause of action 26.2.2023 is much after the expiry of warranty period. And claims that the O.P. No.2 is bound to repair, replace the product within its warranty period. So we found there is cause of action for this case as admitted by the parties.
As it appears from the user manual issued by O.Ps. at the time of purchase of the product the warranty registration card not filled up by the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 not signed on the same. The warranty registration card show the warranty condition On the heading one “two years warranty on complete washing machine” Heading two “8 years extended warranty only on motor and prime mover”. The limitation of warranty on the
-: 5 :-
next pages it appears which the warranty will not cover as per para 1 to para 16, the O.P. No.2 or O.P. No.1 in their version or in affidavit not claiming that the complainant violated the warranty condition within warranty period except in para 4 of the version of O.P. No.2 the technician after scrutiny found that due to rat bite the PCB of the product is not functioning. As it appears from para 13 (b) of warranty card “rate bites wiring harness” warranty condition not applicable. The O.P. No.2 though claims the technician reported the same that documents not filed by the O.P. No.2. So it is confirmed that the O.P. No.2 failed to prove the claim advance in para 4 of his version. So far as the period of warranty is concerned, the warranty period is two years from the date of purchase, as it appears from the invoice date of purchase 29.10.2020. So the warranty covered till 28.10.2022. The complainant complaint the defect first time admitted by the O.P. No.1 in para 2 of his version, that after receiving the grievance of complainant, he immediately lodged online complaint before the O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 remained silent about online complaint of O.P. No.1. Both the O.P. not filed the document showing the date of online complaint to ascertain the date of first complaint. The complainant filed screen short of mobile messages which shows that the complainant send message on 10.10.2022 which is prior to completion of warranty period vide complaint No BHU04042343887. Which also suppressed by the O.P. No.2 avoided complying the warranty condition.
As it appears from the complaint affidavit evidence and documents filed by both the parties there was complaint about the defect of the product to the O.Ps. and the O.P. No.2 sent his technician to remove defect as complaint by the complainant. The technician found defect and try to remove the defect, received the charges in spite of that he could not success as it was manufacturing defect. The same supported by affidavit evidence of complainant and the complaint petition. So we confirmed the product was defect within warranty period and the O.Ps. failed to remove the defect as per warranty condition.
As it appears from the complaint, version and the documents i.e messages of complainant it is proved that the O.Ps. received several request for repair of the product within warranty period. On the last part of warranty and to avoid warranty condition they intentionally deliberately avoided the same and caused delay in sending technician in spite of repeated message by the complainant. Further it appears from the warranty condition para1 and the card with user manual showing Areal detergent has been promoted to use under warranty condition which is a condition under restrictive trade practice under
-: 6 :-
consumer protection act. Hence it is proved that the O.Ps. are involved in unfair trade practice, restrictive trade practice as well as deficiency in service. In view of above finding the complainant entitled for the relief claimed.
Hence we direct the O.Ps. to replace with new machine of same model or refund the consideration amount with 8% interest from the date of purchase, Refund the service charges Rs.4216 received by the technicianvide service request No.636 dated 21.2.2023 as the machine not working inspite of repair. Pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and suffering and Rs.5000/ for cost of litigation.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the CONFONET for perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Dated the 13th day of November 2023
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Padhan Sri U.N.Purohit
Member President
Dt.13.11.2023 Dt.13.11.2023
