BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 648 of 2019
Date of Institution: 15.11.2019
Date of Decision: 28.04.2023.
Bhim Sain aged 42 years son of Shri Banwari Lal, resident of Gaushala Mohalla, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. India T.V. & Electronics, Near Ghantaghar Chowk, Rania Bazar, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Partner.
2. Whirlpool India Limited, Plot No.40 Sector-44, Gurgaon- 122002 through its Managing Director.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER
Argued by: Sh. V.P. Saharan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Baljeet Singh, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Mahesh Yadav, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that op no.1 is authorized dealer of op no.2 and op no.2 is manufacturer of whirlpool electronics i.e. refrigerator etc. That complainant had purchased one refrigerator make Whirlpool WSM 80 Model 70678 from op no.1 on 19.11.2018 for total sum of Rs.14,500/- including price of Rs.12288/- and GST amount vide bill no. 306 and this amount was paid in cash to op no.1. At that time op no.1 had given full guarantee regarding any manufacturing defect or any other defect in the refrigerator. That the refrigerator run properly for about 3/4 months and thereafter bulb of the same became off and there were also manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator. The matter was reported to op no.1 and op no.1 sent a mechanic to the house of complainant who checked the refrigerator and replaced the bulb and op no.1 charged Rs.700/- from the complainant. But after some time, same defect developed in the said refrigerator. It is further averred that said refrigerator is not functioning/ working properly and became off and on automatically. The matter was again reported to op no.1 and op no.1 assured him that it would be checked from the engineer of the company very soon but till today no engineer of the company came to his house and refrigerator is lying closed/ off. The complainant is suffering from mental tension, agony and harassment and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops as ops have supplied/ sold defective refrigerator to the complainant and there is a manufacturing defect in the fridge. It is further averred that complainant got served a legal notice upon ops on 09.09.2019 requiring them either to refund Rs.14,500/- i.e. cost of fridge alongwith interest @18% per annum since 19.11.2018 till the date of payment or to replace the same with new one but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is correct that complainant had purchased a fridge from the shop of answering op but it is wrong and incorrect that answering op had given any guarantee to the complainant and there are only warrantee. That first of all complainant has mentioned the wrong model of said fridge. The alleged model was not purchased by complainant from the shop of answering op. It is further submitted that there is no any manufacturing defect in the said fridge. If there was any alleged defect in the said fridge, complainant had himself got repaired the same from any private mechanic. The answering op had never sent any mechanic as alleged by complainant and as such question of charging of Rs.700/- by mechanic does not arise at all. Even though there is any defect in the fridge, then complainant must have complained to the customer care of the company, who would remove the alleged complaint. But complainant never approached to the customer care and has issued the present notice just only to harass and humiliate answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that refrigerator comes with standard warranty as first one year as comprehensive and additional years for compressor only. The fact was told and explained to the complainant at the time of purchase of refrigerator. It is further submitted that complainant never registered any complaint regarding the working of the refrigerator with answering op. The answering op never denied after sale service to any of its customers. Even answering op is ready to get the same rectified if needed under the terms of warranty and answering op is still willing to abide by the terms of the warranty. Whenever customer has any complaint regarding the working of the product manufactured by answering op, there is a specific customer care helpline where any customer can call and register the concerns and there has been automatic generated complaint number being assigned for the future reference. But in this case complainant never chose to contact the op no.2 for the functioning of the refrigerator. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents i.e. legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2 and invoice Ex.C3.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Chugh Proprietor as Ex. RW1/A. Learned counsel for op no.2 suffered a statement that their written version may be read as their evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. From the invoice Ex.C3, it is evident that on 19.11.2018 complainant had purchased the refrigerator of whirlpool company model WSM 80 from op no.1 for sale consideration of Rs.14,500/- and said refrigerator is manufactured by op no.2. The complainant has alleged that said refrigerator worked properly for only three/ four months and thereafter it became defective due to manufacturing defect within guarantee period and same is lying closed/ off. It is also alleged by complainant that matter has been reported to the ops several times but they have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the op no.2 that complainant never registered any complaint regarding the working of the refrigerator with the answering op and they never denied after sale service to any of its customers and that they are ready to rectify the refrigerator under the terms of warrantee. Though complainant has not proved by any cogent and convincing evidence that refrigerator in question is having any manufacturing defect but as he is alleging defects in the refrigerator in question within one year i.e. within warranty period, therefore, ops are liable to provide after sale services to the complainant i.e. to rectify and to make it defect free without any costs. The plea of op no.1 that complainant has mentioned wrong model of refrigerator is not supported by any authentic evidence and therefore, said plea is not proved on record whereas in the invoice/ bill the model number mentioned by complainant in his complaint is duly mentioned.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the refrigerator in question of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacement of defective parts, if any without any costs. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant will have to hand over the refrigerator in question to the op no.1 for repair against proper receipt within time as soon as possible. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 28.04.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
