THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE No. CC- 21  of  2020

 

 

Sri Prafulla Sarkar 

S/O- Late Ganga Charan Sarkar,

Barjala, P.S. Ramnagar,

Agartala, West Triprua,

Represented by his son Sri Tutan Sarkar. ...….................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

Datta Radio Service Centre,

GSTIN, 16ACXPD8474E1Z6,

Mantri Bari Road(Post Office Chowmuhani),

P.O.- Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

Tripura(W)-799001. ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bilapbendu Roy,

  Sri Sunit Sakar,

    Smt. Sushmita Das,

  Learned Advocate.

    

For the O.Ps : Smt. Subhra Datta,

  In person.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  05.05.2021

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

The Complainant Sri Prafulla Sarkar set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

 

The Complainant's case in short is that on 06th March, 2019 the complainant purchased one Whirlpool Refrigerator, 71001, No. INC 183314886 from the shop of the O.P. for an amount of Rs.17000/- O.P. has given 10(ten) years warranty at the time of purchase of the said Whirlpool Refrigerator. At the same day it was installed and put to use at his house but after running hardly for an hour the refrigerator totally failed to function smoothly. That the said whirlpool refrigerator abruptly stopped smooth function from the date of installation i.e., 06.03.2019. Initially the cooling function was not proper and it was reported to the authorized service centre of whirlpool with a request to replace the unit on 11th March, 2019. Accordingly, on 16th March, 2019 the service personnel of whirlpool came to his place and filed up gas. That once again on 13th April, 2019 the problem re-occurred and on 18th April, 2019 again a service personnel of whirlpool came to his place and changed the compressor. That on 3rd June 2019 again a service request call was placed as the problem still continued and accordingly on 8th June, 2019 the service personnel of whirlpool came to his place and done some welding works. That from 16th July 2019 there were some disturbing noise from the refrigerator and it was also reported to the authorized service centre of whirlpool and they advised to wait and watch. On 6th January, 2020 it was reported to the authorized service centre of whirlpool that the problem had been worsening from 3rd January, 2020.     The service engineer turned up on 7th January, 2020 but failed to solve the problem. Again on 18th, January, 2020 the service personnel came and went back after taking photograph of the said refrigerator and nothing was done. O.P. did not bother to honour the request of the complainant and till date the complainant is  suffering due to non availability of the refrigerator. The O.P. instead of replacement of the said defective refrigerator advised him to do some intolerable works. The complainant understood tht the O.P.  sold a totally defective refrigerator to cheat him. Hence he filed this complaint claiming cost of the refrigerator of Rs.17,000/- along with 18% interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1000/- for litigation cost.          

            

2.   On the other hand O.P. appeared and contested the case by filing written objection stating that the complaint is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. In the written objection it is stated by the O.P. that the complainant suppressed material facts and the complaint petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The O.P. denied the allegations of the complainant. O.P. did not dispute that the complainant purchased the refrigerator on 06.03.2019  for an amount of Rs.17000/-. It is also stated by the O.P. that as per terms and conditions given by the company 10 years warranty has been given by the company for the same.  It is further stated by the O.P that if any problem arises then as per warranty card the authorized service centre is liable to satisfy the complainant not the seller and therefore the O.P. in no way is liable. Moreover the O.P. is not the manufacturer of the product therefore it is not possible for them to tell whether there is any manufacturing defect or not and regarding replacement until and unless the company gives any direction to the O.P. and the O.P. is not in a position to replace the appliance but the complainant did not make party the manufacturer. It is stated that the O.P. contacted with the company as well as the authorized service centre about the complaint. And their service team and the service technician found that there is no issue in the appliance and the same is working fine and further requested the complainant that if the complainant face any noise issue in the appliance then he should share the noise video to the technician visited at the residence of the complainant. It is also stated that if there is any technical fault as alleged by the complainant herein for that the customer care of the Whirlpool company and its service centre is there and in no way the O.P. is liable. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

One behalf of the complainant Sri Tutan Sarkar, son of the complainant submitted examination in chief on affidavit and 3 documents which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. 

On the other hand on behalf of the O.P. Smt. Subhra Datta, proprietor of Datta Radio Service Centre also submitted examination in chief on affidavit.

 

 

 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(I) Whether complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

We have heard arguments of both the parties.  Learned counsel Mr. B.Roy appearing for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased one whirlpool refrigerator from the shop of the O.P. on 6th March, 2019 and there was warranty period for 10 years. After installation of the said refrigerator it was not properly functioning. There after the complainant reported the matter to the authorized service centre of whirlpool with a request to replace the refrigerator on 11th March, 2019. Accordingly on 16th March service personal of whirlpool came to the residence of the complainant and repaired it. Again problem cropped up and service personal came and changed the compressor. And thereafter on 3rd June, 2019 service request was made as problem still continued and accordingly on 8th June, 2018 service personal of whirlpool came to his residence and also repaired it. w.e.f. 16th July, 2019 there was some disturbing noise from the refrigerator and it was reported to the authorized service centre of whirlpool and they advised to wait and watch. And thereafter service engineer was reported but failed to solve the problem. Thereafter, the complainant requested the O.P. to replace the defective refrigerator but O.P. did not replace it. Learned Counsel ventilating the above facts stated that the complainant was cheated and as a consumer he has every right to get it replaced from the O.P. and the O.P. is liable to replace it or to refund the entire price of it along with interest. 

 

6. On the other hand Smt. Subhra Datta who is the proprietor of the Datta Radio Centre appeared in person and argued her case. During argument she submitted that she has no liability and responsibility. She is only the seller/ dealer. If there is any technical fault as alleged by the complainant herein for that purpose the customer care of the whirlpool company and its service centre is there and the O.P. is not liable. She further submitted that at the time of purchasing, the refrigerator was in a good condition and when it was installed the complainant did not make any complaint. During the use of the refrigerator problem may be cropped up and for that purpose there is the service centre of the complainant and they are to look into the matter. She further submitted that neither the company of the whirlpool nor their service centre are made parties in this proceeding and for that reason the proceeding is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. At last she submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. 

 

7. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

All the points are taken up together for convenience. We have meticulously perused the pleadings and evidences adduced by both the parties. On perusal of the pleadings as well as evidence we find there is no dispute in respect of purchasing of the whirlpool refrigerator from the shop of the O.P. It is also fact that O.P. is the seller only. During arguments Smt. Subhra Datta proprietor of the Datta Radio Service Centre i.e., the O.P. of the instant case raised the question of maintainability of the proceeding for non-joinder of necessary party. She also relied upon the exhibited documents submitted by the complainant side (Annexure -3) copy of the correspondence. Relying upon this document the O.P. submitted that the appliance was working fine and complainant was directed to share noise of video. At the time of visiting of technicians there was no issue found in the appliance. Mrs. Datta further submitted that she only sold out the refrigerator which was in good condition. But for the warranty period the manufacturer is liable if any defect is found subsequently. On perusal of the examination in chief submitted by Tutan Sarkar son of the complainant as well as authorized person we find that in his examination in chief there is no averments in respect of visit of technicians or reporting the matter to the service centre or any complaint made to the service centre about non functioning of the refrigerator. The examination in chief only blames the o.P. showing that the seller sold a defective whirlpool refrigerator. At the time of purchasing of any goods the buyer has also some duties of  accepting the goods and pay for that in accordance with the terms of contract for sale.  From the evidence of both sides we find that refrigerator was sold on 6th March 2019 and it was installed by the O.P. in the house of the complainant and it was also found in good condition and regard to the warranty it is the matter of service Centre to look into if there is any problem as well as liability is of the manufacturer. In the instant case we find that the complainant did not make party neither the manufacturer nor the service centre which is vital and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 

 

8. The Exhibited documents adduced by the complainant (Annexure 3) copy of the correspondence dated 04.02.2020 speaks that the appliance was working fine. Inspite that the complainant was directed to share the noise Video as at the time of visit technicians did not find any issue in the appliance. This particular document is also relied by the O.P. O.P. in her examination in chief at para- 7, specifically mentioned that the complainant did not share any noise video to the company or service technicians which clearly indicates that the refrigerator sold by the O.P. was in good condition and was working properly. And during that time there was no complaint against the said refrigerator. 

 

9. On appreciation of evidence of the complainant side we also find that it was lacking of sufficient evidence to prove any defect or technical fault causing non functioning of the refrigerator. 

 

10. In view of the above discussions we are in the opinion that the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence in respect of defects or mechanical fault of the refrigerator. We also found that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable in law. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Supply copy of this judgment to the parties free of costs.        

 

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.