DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.413 of 29.9.2016
Decided on: 20.12.2017
Neha Gupta w/o Sh.Deepak Gupta, aged about35 years R/o H.No.2188/1, Jourian Bhattain, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Garg Sales, Jourian Bhattian,Patiala, through its Prop.
2. M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd., Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122002 (Haryana).
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate, counsel
for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 ex-parte.
Sh.Sunil Kumar Garg, Advocate, counsel for OP no.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased one whirlpool refrigerator FP 313D Proton Roy Alphast (TR) INELS1604008 from OP no.1 vide invoice No.40760 dated 19.8.2015 for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. At the time of the said purchase, the OP no.1 gave one year guarantee plus 9 years warranty. It is averred that from the very day one of the said purchase, whatever item such as fruits, vegetables, cooked food, sweets etc. were placed in it, all the item used to get filled up water within a few minutes, which shows that there was some leakage in the refrigerator. The complainant visited OP no.1 many times requesting it either repair the defect or replace the refrigerator with a new one but to no use. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint on 11.7.2016 vide code No.498 CH No.0716003775. Then again he made a complaint on 8.8.2016 vide code No.786 vide CH No.0816006278 and again on 13.8.2016 vide code No.536 CH No.08166004621. It is averred that an official of the service centre of Patiala visited the house of the complainant and after checking the refrigerator and making some settings assured the complainant that the problem will be rectified within a few hours but the problem was not rectified till the filing of the present complaint. One of the officials of the service centre told the complainant that there was some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified without the replacement of the refrigerator with a new one. As a result, the complainant underwent a lot of physical as well as mental tension. He also got served a regd. legal notice to the OPs on 16.82016 but to no effect. Ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OP no.1 did not appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte whereas Op no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. In its reply it is an admitted fact that the complainant made first complaint on 11.7.2016, regarding excessive cooling in the refrigerator which was duly attended and the thermostat of the refrigerator was replaced. Next complaints were lodged on 1.8.2016 and 13.8.2016 wherein the service engineer of OP no.2 found the refrigerator in good working condition. Therefore the OPs cannot be said to be deficient in providing service and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld.counsel for OP no.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Abhishek Paruthi, Branch Service Manager and closed evidence of OP no.2.
- We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C4 is the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one refrigerator on 19.7.2015 for an amount of Rs.36,000/-.From the very beginning there was some problem in the said refrigerator as the fruits, vegetables, sweets, cooked food etc. used to get filled up with water and the complainant contacted OP no.1 many times requesting it to replace the refrigerator but to no use. Ultimately he lodged three complaints i.e. on 11.7.2016, 8.8.2016 and then on 13.8.2016 but the problem could not be rectified. Whereas the plea taken by OP no.2 is that after receiving the first complaint i.e. on 11.7.2016 regarding excessive cooling, the service engineer of Op no.2 replaced the thermostat of the refrigerator. On the next two complaints i.e. on 1.8.2016 and 13.8.2016, the refrigerator was found to be OK. During the course of arguments also, the counsel for the complainant argued that the problem in the refrigerator is still persisting and the refrigerator is lying useless.
- In the present case, though the counsel for OP no.2 has submitted that there was no problem in the refrigerator but has failed to produce on record any document to support his plea. The problem of over cooling has already been admitted by the OP no.2.The problem could not be rectified despite rectifying it again and again. The problem occurred in the refrigerator during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on its part.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP no.2 to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 20.12.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
