BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.         

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.58 of 2014                                                                  

                                                         Date of Institution         :    8.5.2014

                                                          Date of Decision   :    8.9.2016

Ram Kishan son of Sh. Madan Lal, resident of Court Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil & District Sirsa.

                                                                             ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. M/s Bharat T.V. & Electronics, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its Proprietor.

2. Whirlpool of India Limited, registered office, Plot No.A-4 MIDC, Ranjango, Taluka Shirur, Distt. Pune-4122, through Managing Director.

3. Whirlpool of India Limited, Corporate office, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon – 122 022 through Managing Director.

                                                                       ...…Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT

                   SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh.M.M. Pareek,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Ashok Kumar, Prop. on behalf of opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the opposite parties no.2 & 3.

          ORDER

          Case of complainant is that complainant had purchased one refrigerator of three doors of Whirlpool company from opposite party no.1 vide bill No.8299 on 16.10.2011 for a sum of 28,900/-. The opposite party no.1 had given five years warranty against all manufacturing defects and also assured about its performance. However, defects occurred in the fridge within a very short period of three months of its purchase. It stopped giving cooling and used to give electric shock. The complainant approached the op no.1 in this regard who sent an engineer to his house and upon inspection he told that defect has occurred in the fan of the refrigerator and same is to be replaced. As such, the same was replaced and an amount of Rs.390/- as services charges was charged from the complainant. Again after two months the fridge was not giving cooling in its lower portion and upon inspection by the mechanic of op no.1, it was disclosed that due to voltage, defect has occurred in its fan and he was asked to purchase a stabilizer for which he incurred an amount of Rs.2000/-. But despite that, same defect again occurred in the fridge and upon inspection by mechanic of op no.1 it was disclosed that defect has occurred in the heater of the fridge and same will have to be replaced. The op no.1 charged an amount of Rs.800/- for replacement of the same and also Rs.390/- as service charges. Then after one year of purchase of fridge, defect occurred in its thermostat which was got replaced and he incurred an amount of Rs.800/- on it besides services charges of Rs.390/-. Thereafter, defect again occurred in the fridge and upon inspection it was told to him that defect has occurred in its compressor and op no.1 charged an amount of Rs.900/- for filling gas and Rs.390/- as service charges but despite that fridge did not work properly. Now the fridge is not giving any cooling and complainant is deprived from using it since its purchase and opposite parties have failed to replace the same despite his several requests and he has suffered a lot of harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.     

2.                  On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and contested the case by filing written statement. It is averred that warranty is given by the company and not by the dealer. As per the instructions of company, the op no.1 had given warranty for one year plus warranty of four years for the compressor. The op no.1 had not given any type of assurance regarding replacement of fridge in case of any defect and had only assured that in case any defect occurs in the fridge then the part is replaced within one year free of costs and after that any type of complaint is redressed by company and not by the dealer. The op no.1 did not receive any type of complaint from the complainant as such no question of sending the mechanic and charging any amount does not arise.

3.                Opposite parties No.2 & 3 in their separate reply have pleaded that complainant purchased the unit on 16.10.2011 and for the very first time, he approached the company regarding some issue in the unit after almost four years from its purchase i.e. on 25.4.2014 with Fan motor and voltage problem and solution was provided to the complainant. It was told to him that unit is out of warranty of one year, so the repair if any would be on chargeable basis, but complainant refused to get the unit repaired. The complainant before 25.4.2014 never approached the answering ops and that op no.1 is not the authorized service center. As per company’s policy unit carries one year comprehensive warranty and four years warranty on the compressor and in this case the complaint is regarding the unit which is out of warranty. The company was and is still ready to repair it as per its policy. The complaint is also barred by limitation as complainant stated defects after three months of its purchase but complaint has been filed in the month of May, 2014 i.e. after almost four years and as such prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

4.                By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1; copies of various e-mails Ex.C2 to C6, copy of bill Ex.C7 whereas the Ops filed affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of job card dated 25.4.2014  as Ex.R2.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

6.                The complainant is alleging defects in the refrigerator in question since very beginning and has alleged that for removing above said defects, the op no.1 has charged the amounts on various occasions as detailed above. Even when the defect occurred in the compressor which was within warranty of five years, the op no.1 charged a sum of Rs.900/- for filling gas. The op no.1 has failed to prove on record that any part of the fridge within one year was replaced without costs. The op no.1 has averred that as he did not receive any kind of complaint from complainant, so sending of mechanic by him and charging any amount does not arise but there is nothing on record to believe his version. The complainant has testified the contents of his complaint by way of affidavit but op no.1 has failed to rebut the same even through his affidavit as no affidavit in support of his versions has been placed on file by op no.1. The complainant has also placed on file various e-mails sent to the opposite parties regarding defects in the refrigerator which falsify the plea of the ops No.2 & 3 that complainant approached them only on 25.4.2014. The complainant has proved his case that the refrigerator in question is having certain defects since beginning and has not been rectified despite various repairs and charging amounts from him.

7.                Keeping in view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with the directions to the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator in question with a new one of same description and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for his harassment and mental agony and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The opposite parties are liable to comply this order jointly and severally within a period of one month. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated: 8.9.2016                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.