District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 282/2020
Date of Institution:31.08.2020.
Date of Order:03.03.2023.
Mr. Robin Kumar C4/1206, SRS Residency, Sector-88, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Chairman & Managing Director, M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Whirlpool House, Plot No. 40, Sector-44, Gurugram – 122002.
2. Managing Director, Amazon India Pvt. Ltd., Amazon World Trade Center, Brigade Gateway, 8th floor, 26/1. Rajkumar road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055.
…Opposite parties.
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Ms. Shyamwati, counsel for the complainant.
Ms. Arpita, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. K.S.Rathore and Sh. Surender Kumar, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant bought a Split AC on 23.05.2020 for INR 27499/- by Amazon order # 404-9714597-4234766 and invoice No. IN-SDEI-13618. The AC was faulty and even after multiple complaints the problem was not resolved. AC had never cooled for more than a week continuously and always had a problem. The complainant had made all possible attempts and had given enough opportunities to opposite party to fix the problem, but a permanent solution was never provided. On 26.5.2020 complaint No. FAR26052683631 regarding installation of AC and the response fromm Whirlpool was not satisfactory as even after multiple follow ups, nobody was interested in listening to the complainant. It took Whirlpool more than 15 days to install the AC. Installation got completed on 8th June and service engineer charged INR 3400/- without providing any bill. So even though complainant paid for AC on 23rd May 2020. He could not use it until 8th June. On 23.06.2020 the complainant lodged complaint No. FAR23062016611 regarding complaint of AC not cooling and response from Whirlpool is that the complainant just received calls from random people that they will come and fix the issue, but nobody really fixed it complaint had to call multiple times to their call center but call center had not way to talk to the service center,. The complainant was forced to call multiple people in order to get the problem fixed. Multiple service engineer visited but they all said that since installation was done by other service center of Whirlpool, they refused to fix the issue and closed the service request abruptly. On 25.06.2020 after getting fed up by the response of service center, the complainant wrote an email to Whirlpool on 25th June 2020 but as usual there was no response from Whirlpool On 26.06.2020 once service request mentioned in S.No.2 was closed without consent of complainant, complainant opened another service request to get the problem fixed. This time installation engineer visited the premises and had repaired the Ac by filling the gas. On 19.08.2020 the same story repeated as described in sl. No.2, assigned service center visited and refused to fix the problem saying that they won’t fix it as it was installed by other whirlpool service center and closed the service request abruptly. As on today 28.08.2020, there was no update on fixing of AC. AC was still not cooling and Whirlpool not even bothering to fix it. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay original value of AC, INR 27499/- alongwith 18% p.a. interest.
b) Pay installation charges, INR, 3400/- paid to service engineer, alongwith 18% p.a. interest.
c) pay un installation charges for Ac, INR 2000/- as complainant won’t be using this AC anymore.
d) pay charges to fix building structural damage which would be caused by uninstalling split Ac, INR 10000/-.
e) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
f) pay Rs. 10,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint of the complainant pertains to the COVID-19 period and the complainant had purchased the Split A.C. during the peak of COVID-19 wherein the Central Government had imposed nationwide lockdown and the even essential commodities business were running with minimum staff and under strict guidelines issued by the Central government. It was submitted that the opposite parties were still willing to repair the Split A.C in question as per the terms of warranty. It was submitted that the engineer visited the complainant premises during the high risk of COVID-19 and attended the complaints registered with answering opposite party. The present complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant had not impleaded the authorized service centre as a party who was well conversant of the facts about the product and had attended all the complaints registered with the company. It was submitted that complainant had intentionally not impleaded the authorized service centre as a party in the present complaint in order to mislead the Hon’ble Commission. At this stage, if there was any problem in working of Split Ac the answering opposite party was still ready to repair the same without prejudice. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had placed an order for an air conditioner of the make and model Whirlpool 1 Ton 5 Star Inverter Split AC (Copper, 1.0T Magicool Pro 5S Coper Inverter , White) for a sum of Rs.27,499/- on 23.05.2020 from M/s. Cloudtail India Private Limited having their place of business at Farrukhnagar Logistic Park LLP, Farrukhnagar, Distt. Gurugram, Haryana basis the listings made by the Independent Third Party Sellet i.e Cloudtail India Private Limited on the e-commerce marketplace. Against the aforesaid order, an invoice bearing No. IN-SDEI-13618 dated 24.05.2020 was issued by the Independent Third Party Seller i.e Cludtail India Pvt. Limited indicating its goods and srvice tax No.i.e.06AAQCS4259Q1ZE and the permanent account NO. i.e. AAQCS4259Q against the said order. For added emphasis, it was reiterated that the tax inovice was issued by the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. And not by the answering oppositeparpty herein clealry indicating that the transaction of sale was executed by and between the complainant and the independent third party seller i.e. Cloudtail India Private Limited. It was submitted that basis the complaint received from the complainant, the answering opposite party inquired into the matter wth the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Cludtail India Private Limited and it was informed to the answering opposite party that the compaliannt thad approached the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Cloudtial India Private Limited on 27.05.2020 seeking information regarding installation of the air conditioner. It had been informed by the Indaependent Third Party Seller i.e. Cloudtail India Private Limited that the compainant had never alleged any issues regardin gthe defect in the product. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Whirlpool of India Ltd. with the prayer to: a) pay original value of AC, INR 27499/- alongwith 18% p.a. interest. b)Pay installation charges, INR, 3400/- paid to service enginner, alongwith 18% p.a. interest. c) pay un installation charges for Ac, INR 2000/- as complainant won’t be using this AC anymore.d)pay charges to fix building structural damage which would be caused by uninstalling split Ac, INR 10000/-. e) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . f) pay Rs. 10,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Robin Kumar,, Ex.C-1 – Tax Invoice, Ex.C-2 to 5 – emails, Ex.C-6 – Screen shot from twitter, Ex.C-7 – Discharge summary.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 affidavit of Neeraj Mehta, Senior Manager-Legal with M/s. Whirlpool of India Limited, having corporate office at Plot No.40, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana.
As per evidence of opposite party No.2, Ex.RW2/A – affidavit, Ex.R-A – authority letter, Ex.-B – Resolution, Ex.-C –Tax invoice, Ex.-D - letter, Ex.-E – Conditions of use.
6. It is evident from Tax invoice vide Ex. C-1 that the complainant purchased a Split AC on 23.05.2020 for INR 27499/- by Amazon order # 404-9714597-4234766 and invoice No. IN-SDEI-13618. A.C is faulty and even after multiple complaints the problem is not resolved. AC has never cooled for more than a week continously and always had a problem.
On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has submitted in his written that aht they were still willing to repair the Split AC. in question as per the terms of warranty. The complainant has not impleaded the authorized service centre as a party who was well conversant of the facts about the product and had attended all the complaints registered with the company. The complainant had intentionally not impleaded the authorized service centre as a party in the present complaint in order to mislead the Hon’ble Commission. At this stage, if there was any problem in working of Split Ac the answering opposite party was still ready to repair the same without prejudice.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed.Opposite parties Nos.1 t& 2 jointly & severally, are directed to replace the A.C in question with a new one, subject to return the old A.C within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 03.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
