DATE OF FILING : 30/01/2015
DATE OF S/R : 05/06/2015
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 18/02/2016
Mr. Radha Gobinda Pal,
Vill Naba Pally,
P.O. Salap Bazar,
District Howrah 711 409……………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
1. Manager,
M/s Whirlpool India Ltd.,
Kolkata Customer Care Center
Shantiniketan Building (11th floor)
Opposite British Council,
8, Camac Street, Kolkata 700 016
2. M/s Great Eastern Appl (P) Ltd.
Sundar Para Road,
Near Santragachi Station
P.O. GIP Colony,
Howrah 711 112.……………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, Mr. Radha Gobinda Pal, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P.s to replace the RO system with a new one, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant bought RO water Purifier on payment of Rs.14,800/- vide annexure cash memo dt. 11/12/2013 from O.P. no. 2 manufactured by O.P. 1. But it has gone out of order since 29/07/2014 and that was duly informed to O.Ps. O.Ps. sent technician who changed the candle on payment. There after, the said purifier became out of order for several reasons as stated by the complainant in his petition in details. Ultimately on 01/11/2014 complainant was advised to exchange the RO system on payment of exchange price inspite of the fact that it was within the warranty period. Complainant is a senior citizen and suffering form different ailments, again he is being compelled to suffer a lot due to lack of purified water. Accordingly by alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps. he has filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayers.
Notices were served upon O.Ps. Both the O.Ps. appeared and filed W/V. Accordingly the case was heard on contest against both O.Ps.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- We have carefully gone through the W/V and annexure filed by O.Ps. and noted their contents. It is the specific plea taken by O.P. 1 that as and when complainant lodged any complaint with them, they sent their technician who rendered the required service. But that service was rendered on payment as the defects arose after the warranty period. The water purifier was purchased on 11/12/2013 and it was under warranty for one year i.e. up to 10/12/2014. The defect arose on 21/07/2014 and complainant lodged the complaint with O.P. 1 for the first time vide code no 57 complain no. 714012106 and technician visited and replaced the candle on payment. But from the warranty clause, it is evident that O.P. 1 undertook to change any non functional / defective parts of the RO system by a functional one during the warranty period of one year irrespective of any spare parts of the RO system, what so ever. Moreover the purifier went on giving trouble in many ways during the warranty period. We are to consider here, that this product is some thing, the performance of which is directly related with the health and hygiene. Complainant paid such an amount of Rs.14,800/- but he could not get the complete service of it even for one year. Although O.P. 1 sent its technician but demanded payment for repair and replacement. Another plea of O.P. 1 is that RO membrane is not covered by warranty term and condition. But their warranty clause does not reflect such claim of O.P. 1. Even complainant did not get any free post sale service from O.Ps. as per terms and conditions of the warranty which is detailed under the heading “How to maintain your Whirl Pool RO – Important to Note – b) – Regular Preventive Visit”. O.Ps. should have remembered that consumer satisfaction is the key to their success. But they are only interested to sell their product, not to provide after sale service to their customers. But always they utter towards and intending customer / Purchaser that ‘you are our most valuable / valued customer’ – what a fallacy However under the above discussing, we hold both the O.Ps. to be deficient in service as O.P. 1 took entire purchase price of the purifier from the complainant. So O.P. 2 can not Shrug of their duty toward the complainant. Accordingly we are of candid opinion that it is a fit case were the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Point are accordingly disposed off.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 42 of 2015 ( HDF 42 of 2015 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to replace the RO system of the complainant with a new one having same capacity and value within one month from this date i.e. Rs.50/- per day shall be imposed upon them till actual replacement.
That they are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation costs within one month from this date i.e. entire amount of Rs.3000/- shall carry an interest @8% p.a. till actual payment.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah
