West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/338/2014

TAPAS DUTTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Madhumita Adhikary

13 Apr 2015

ORDER

     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _338_ OF ___2014_____

 

DATE OF FILING : 31.7.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 13.4.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Dr. (Mrs.)  Shibani Chakraborty

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Tapas Dutta, “Nicco House”, 2^nd Floor, 2, Hare Street, P.S Hare Street,

Kolkata – 700 001 and residing at “Neer” 73, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, P.S. Haridevpur, Kolkata – 41.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :    1.   Whirlpool of India Ltd. “Whirlpool House”, Plot no.40, Sector-44,

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122002.

2.     Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 371/1, Diamond Harbour Road, 1^st Floor, P.S Behala, (Beside Ashoka Cinema), Kolkata – 34, Dist. S-24PGs.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President                                    

            It is the short case of the complainant that attracted by the advertisement of respondents /O.Ps regarding discount/offer  on booking the products on 25.12.2013, the complainant booked one Washing Machine, Whirlpool make (Stain Wash SW 6500 Sparkling Wine 12509722) at the price of Rs.23,700/-  and instructed the O.Ps to deliver the product in the month of March, 2014 . Accordingly the washing machine was delivered on 4.3.2014.      After opening the cartoon he found that the front side of the body of washing machine is dented and there is also some mechanical defects  and he suggested for replacement in the service request dated 16.3.2014 . The Service Engineer who came to install the machine left without installing the same but problem arose when he asked for a copy of tax invoice, which is required for replacement as it has not been handed over to the complainant by the dealer at the time of delivery of goods.  Upon making complaint on 26.3.2014, the O.P-2 provided him the Finance Order Receipt dated 25.12.2013 instead of Tax Invoice ,which is required for replacement of the machine. When the O.P-1 failed and neglected to replace the washing the machine, the complainant served legal notice but it also yielded no result and hence the case.

            The O.P-1 is contesting the application by filing written version and denying all the allegations leveled against O.p-1.

            It is the positive case of the O.P-1 that complainant allegedly purchased one washing machine on 25.12.2013 of his choice from O.P-2 , the dealer along with some other products and same was being duly delivered upon the complainant by the dealer. Thereafter, at the time of installation in the month of March, 2014 there was dent found in the said machine and Service Engineer found dent in the same machine. It has stated that as per norms of the O.P-1 the Service Engineer ought to have asked for Tax Invoice /cash memo so that necessary steps can be taken from the manufacturer’s end . But complainant failed to provide any tax invoice and unless original tax invoice is provided, the O.P cannot proceed to take the required steps in case of an alleged defective machine. Accordingly answering O.P is not liable for any act of deficiency of service. Hence, the O.P-1 prays for dismissal of the case.

            The O.P-2 is not contesting the application and case is run against the O.p-2 as exparte.

            Points for decision in this case is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.

                                                                        Decision with reasons

            We have perused the documents and we found that complainant purchased a Whirlpool Washing Machine from Khosla Electronics pvt. Ltd. on 25.,12.2013 along  with other products. So, there is no dispute that washing machine was purchased by the complainant from O.P-2 and it is also not disputed that O.p-1 is the manufacturer of the said product. Now O.P-1 raised on point that until and unless Tax Invoice is produced, how the said washing machine can be replaced. So, he has no deficiency in service but O.p-1 is not dispute regarding the purchase of product, which is a b rand name of Whirlpool because they are the manufacturer. It may be mentioned here that O.p-2 is a dealer and is responsible for that non-issue of tax invoice. But complainant being a purchaser has no fault and he has obtained one Finance Order Receipt  from the dealer O.P-2, wherein it has specifically mentioned regarding the said sale of product. If the O.p-1 is disputing that technical point that Tax Invoice is required to replace the same, they are the good business house and in order to keep their name and fame they can easily ask O.P-2 to provide the tax invoice if O.P-2 if at all issued the same. But the inevitable was not happened and O.P-1 being a dealer  is unnecessary harassing the complainant particularly when the Service Engineer of their product already visited complainant’s house and has opined that front side body dent to be replaced. It is the report of the Service Engineer on 16.3.2014 . So, O.P-1 cannot departure themselves from that valued opinion of their Service Engineer. Thus on a moment scrutiny we found that O.P-1 acted deficiency in service and took a flimsy plea that Tax Invoice is required to  replace the same. Can they deny regarding their product as well as can they deny regarding the report of Service Engineer of their control. Answer is no. So, at this juncture this is unfair trade practice for which complainant’s allegation should be redressed by this Forum.

            Accordingly, it is

                                                                        Ordered

That the application under section  12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest against O.P-1 and exparte against the O>P-2.

The O.P-1 is directed to replace the said Washing Machine with a current warranty , alternatively refund Rs.23,700/- , the actual price of goods within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, interest will carry @9% p.a from the date of purchase i.e. 23.12.2013 till its realization.

It may be mentioned here that if the O.P-1 refund the total consideration of Rs.23,700/- , then they are entitled to recover the same from their dealer O.P-2 and if replaced the said washing machine by new one along with fresh warranty card, then the complainant is directed to hand over the defective washing machine as per direction of O.p-1.

The O.P nos. 1 and 2 both are jointly liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony of the complainant litigation cost of Rs.2000/- and that amounts have to be paid within 30 days  from the date of this order.

O.P-1 is further directed to stop this type of unfair trade practice and to comply the order in toto within the stipulated period ,failing which penal interest will carry upon them to the tune of Rs.25000/- which will be deposited to Consumer Legal Aid Fund .

Let a plain copy of this order  be sent to the O.P through this Forum and one copy be handed over to the complainant free of cost.

 

                                                Member                                               President

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

Ordered

That the application under section  12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest against O.P-1 and exparte against the O.P-2.

The O.P-1 is directed to replace the said Washing Machine with a current warranty , alternatively refund Rs.23,700/- , the actual price of goods within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, interest will carry @9% p.a from the date of purchase i.e. 23.12.2013 till its realization.

It may be mentioned here that if the O.P-1 refund the total consideration of Rs.23,700/- , then they are entitled to recover the same from their dealer O.P-2 and if replaced the said washing machine by new one along with fresh warranty card, then the complainant is directed to hand over the defective washing machine as per direction of O.p-1.

The O.P nos. 1 and 2 both are jointly liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony of the complainant litigation cost of Rs.2000/- and that amounts have to be paid within 30 days  from the date of this order.

O.P-1 is further directed to stop this type of unfair trade practice and to comply the order in toto within the stipulated period ,failing which penal interest will carry upon them to the tune of Rs.25000/- which will be deposited to Consumer Legal Aid Fund .

Let a plain copy of this order  be sent to the O.P through this Forum and one copy be handed over to the complainant free of cost.

 

                                                Member                                               President