Delhi

East Delhi

CC/996/2013

PRATIBHA CHOPRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOOL CARE - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                    CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CASE NO-996/13

In the matter of:

Smt. PRATIBHA CHOPRA,

W/O Sh. SANDEEP CHOPRA

R/O C-1/701, MILAN VIHAR APPTS.,

PATPARGANJ, I.P.EXTN.-72

DELHI-110092

Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. KOOL CARE SERVICES,

C-17 A, MANDAWALI UPPER, OPPOSITE NAVNEETI APPTS.

PATPARGANJ, PLOT NO.51, 1.0. EXTN.

DELHI 110092.

 

2. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.

PLOT NO.40, SECTOR-44,

1.  

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                 DATE OF ADMISSION-26/11/2013

                                                                                DATE OF ORDER         -10/09/2015

 

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased a Whirlpool window AC, 1 ton on 17/04/2009 for a consideration of Rs.14,800/- from KBM Electronics which was installed at their residence C-5/229 Milan Vihar apartments, Patparganj. The said AC is defective and has not been working properly, several complaints has been made to the respondent but the defects of low cooling persist. Despite the charges paid on 14/08/2013, for repair. The Compressor is not working properly, although the compressor is in 5 years warranty. It is alleged that the respondent are jointly, severally and vicariously responsible to solve the above problem of the AC and liable to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation.

            Respondent No.2 filed their reply, wherein the plea of bar of limitation has been raised. The AC was purchased on 17/04/2009, and warranty has expired on 16/04/2010. The limitation has also expired on 16/04/2010. The company is providing jointly for service contracted and for sealed system i.e. compressor for a further period of 4 years. The complainant has used the AC for 5 years, no specific date has been mentioned when the 1^st defect was detected. The complaint is a gross misuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed. No original service contract or warranty has been filed. The respondent has never denied providing the service. The allegations are baseless and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

            The complainant in the Rejoinder have alleged that they have lodged the complaint with customer care number and they are in bound to approach Central Approved Laboratories to have the authenticated report regarding the defect in compressor.

            Both the parties have been heard and perused the record.

            The complainant have filed on record the retail invoice dated 17/04/2009, the warranty card indicate 5 years protection plan which is in respect of 4 year warranty of compressor and 1 year comprehensive warranty. The first complaint which has been registered with regard to this AC is dated 14/08/2013. There is the allegation of 3 month additional warranty on the receipt issued by the Whirlpool Authorized Center. The another complaint with the same service center in respect of the gas charging of A.C. was made on 25/09/2013, that is within 3 months of 14/08/2013. The respondent No.1 since has given warranty for the gas for 3 months and the same problem has occurred within 1 ½ month. They are under obligation to again charge the AC gas properly. There is no evidence on record regarding any defect in the compressor as such the respondent No.2 cannot be hold responsible for any deficiency in service. It is only respondent No.1 who was supposed to provide the refilling of the gas as they have given the warranty of 3 months are deficient in providing the service.

            We allow this complaint as against the OP-1. The OP-1 is directed to refill the gas of the complainant AC and make it functional within a period of one month of the order. Failing which they shall refund to the complainant the amount Rs.2500/- which they have charged for gas together with 9% interest thereon. The complainant has suffered on account of deficiency in service by the OP. We allow compensation of Rs.5,000/- which shall also include the cost of litigation. This amount shall be paid by OP No.1 and if not paid within one month, complainant shall be entitled to receive 9% interest till it is paid.

            Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.

 

SUBHASH GUPTA                          POONAM MALHOTRA                       N.A.ZAIDI

     (MEMBER)                                              (MEMBER)                              (PRESIDENT)