BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complaint Case No : 233 of 2010 Date of Institution : 19.04.2010 Date of Decision : 15.02.2011 Mrs. Sarabjit Kaur w/o Sh. Harpreet Singh, #1638, Sector 70, Mohali. ….…Complainant V E R S U S [1] Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 1112, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. [2] Whirlpool of India Ltd., through its Manager, SCO No. 910, 2nd Floor, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh. Deepanjay Sharma, Adv. for Complainant. Ms. Geeta Gulati, Adv. for OPs. PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER Concisely put, the Complainant, purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator Frost Free 310 ELT PROF TITANIUM from OP No.1 on 08.10.2009 by paying a total consideration of Rs.20,300/-. It was alleged that the same turned out to be a defective piece and did not function properly, the front door of the refrigerator being dented, the leg in a broken condition and the beep alarm was not working in case the door was left open for more than 2 minutes. She made several complaints on the helpline and also personally visited the OPs, but to no avail. Finally, a legal notice was served on OP No. 1, which also failed to fetch the desired results. Hence, the present complaint has been filed, alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, directing the OPs to replace the refrigerator or in the alternative to refund a sum of Rs.20,300/-, along with interest, together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment & mental anguish caused to her, besides costs of litigation. 2] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 3] OPs in their joint written statement/ reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that the refrigerator of the Complainant has already been replaced once on 15.5.2010 and the same was working satisfactorily. As such, the instant complaint has become infructuous as the product has already been replaced as per the prevailing warranty terms and conditions. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. 4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5] We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:- i] The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator Frost Free 310 ELT PROF TITANIUM for a total consideration of Rs.20,300/- on 08.10.2009 from OP No. 1 and that the Complainant had lodged several complaints with the OPs in respect of certain defects, alleged to be present in the said Refrigerator, have all been admitted. The main complaint of the Complainant against the OPs is that the front door of the Refrigerator purchased from them was dented, the leg was broken and the beep alarm system in case the door was left open for more than two minutes remaining non-functional and that the OPs have failed to repair the Refrigerator to her satisfaction or replace the defective Refrigerator with a defect free new one. Since the OPs have done neither of the two things, as stated above, the Complainant filed the instant complaint, asking for replacing the defective Refrigerator with a defect free new one or to refund the total consideration amount of Rs.20,300/-, along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment etc. ii] The OPs in their joint written statement/ reply have admitted the core facts of the case and further submitted that the Refrigerator of the Complainant was replaced by them on 15.5.2010 and that the same was working satisfactorily. As such, the present complaint had become infructuous and the same be dismissed with heavy costs. iii] After detailed study of the entire case, we find that the basic facts of the case have not been denied or rebutted by the OPs. It is well established that the Refrigerator purchased by the Complainant had developed certain defects, including a dented door, broken leg and non-functional beep system in the eventuality of the door of the Refrigerator remaining open for more than 2 minutes. In support of its case, the Complainant has stated that she has made at least seven complaints between 12.10.2009 to 26.1.2010, but the problems being faced by her were not attended to or rectified by the OPs. The OPs have attached two job cards, one dated 25.8.2010, and the second dated 28.8.2010 and also the visit details of the OP’s Engineer to the house of the Complainant. Even, in these details noted by the Engineer of the OP, it is stated that the customer was not satisfied and that the visit of the Engineer to the house of the Complainant eventually remained unproductive. That clearly shows that the grievance of the Complainant was never redressed by the OPs and the problems in the Refrigerator continued unabated. The second point made by the OPs in their reply is that the defective Refrigerator was replaced by them on 15.5.2010 and that the replaced Refrigerator was working satisfactorily. This statement of the OPs has been contested by the Complainant, saying that even in the replaced Refrigerator, the beep system was non-functional and the OPs have taken no steps to remedy the situation faced by her so far. iv] Keeping in view the foregoings, it is clearly established that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in not repairing the Refrigerator or replacing the defective Refrigerator, with a new defect free Refrigerator. It was also admitted by the OPs during the course of arguments that the existing beep system in the Refrigerator was not functioning to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The Refrigerator in question was well within the warranty period of one year, when all these problems arose and it is proved beyond doubt that the OPs had supplied a defective Refrigerator to the Complainant for the first time when she purchased the Refrigerator on 08.10.2009 and also second time, when the OPs replaced the defective Refrigerator on 15.05.2010. As such, the Complainant has suffered a lot of harassment, mental agony and pain on account of defective Refrigerator supplied by the OPs to her. v] Since the Complainant has already lodged a number of complaints with the OPs and nothing substantial has been done by the OPs to make the Refrigerator fully functional, the defective Refrigerator needs to be taken back by the OPs and the total consideration price thereof received by the OPs from the Complainant, requires to be paid back to the Complainant by the OPs. 6] In view of the above detailed facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and hence, it must succeed. We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. 7] The OPs shall, jointly and severally, make the following payments to the Complainant:- (i) The OPs shall pay back Rs.20,300/- as the total consideration price of the new Refrigerator to the Complainant. (ii) The OPs shall pay a compensation of Rs.7,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant, on account of supplying defective Refrigerator not once, but twice. (iii) The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant. (iv) However, the Complainant shall return the old and defective Refrigerator to the OPs after receiving the full consideration price, as well as compensation and costs of litigation from the OPs. 8] The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay the sum of Rs.27,300/-, along with interest @18% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 19.04.2010, till the date of realization, besides paying the costs of litigation of Rs.7,000/-. 9] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room. Announced 15.02.2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER (MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | |
