Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that the complainant has purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator, Model No.702 FDBM (570) litre) for an amount of Rs.1,13,000/- from Opposite Party No.1. Alleged that after few days from the purchase of said refrigerator, the same was not working properly as there are defects i.e. it did not defrost the ice and there was electric shock in the said refrigerator. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties many times with a request to replace the refrigerator with one, but to no effect. Due to such act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the Whirlpool Refrigerator Model No.702FDBM or to refund Rs.1,13,000/- the price of the refrigerator.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.

c)       And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Upon service of notice, none has come present on behalf Opposite Parties No.1 & 3. Hence, Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.12.2023.  

3.       However, Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The allegation of the complainant regarding deficiency in service is totally false and frivolous; the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; no cause of action arisen in favour of the complainant against Opposite Party No.2. Submitted that the obligation of Opposite Party No.2 is set the refrigerator right under the terms and conditions of the warranty. Averred that the complaint of the complainant was properly attended by the engineers of authorized service station, but he himself refused to pay for service charges to service engineer. The answering Opposite Party is still ready to repair the Refrigerator under the terms of warranty as well replace with other model as par deprecation policy of the answering Opposite Party to which complainant once agreed but later denied to pay depreciation cost and further chose to start this unwanted litigation. Averred that the complainant has purchased the said refrigerator along with warranty with one year comprehensive and additional nine years for compressor only not 10 year on full refrigerator as described in this present complaint. The complainant has misstating the facts for the reason best known to him. Averred further that the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence or report of an expert from an authorized laboratory in support of his allegation, in the absence of authentic report, the allegations of the complainant is baseless. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant registered first complaint no.CHA08092360607 dated 23.06.2023 with the customer care service center of the answering Opposite Party regarding working of refrigerator. Submitted that the complainant enjoyed the product for more than 5 years without any fault and when service engineer said that this service call will be chargeable as comprehensive warranty expired, the complainant refused for the same. Submitted further that the complainant made a request for replacement of refrigerator with new one, the representative of answering Opposite Party told him that it can be possible under depreciation policy. His request for replacement was processed on concern no.CHA23062320762 dated 30.05.2023 under depreciation policy, but strangely the complainant denied to pay depreciation cost and further chose to start this unwanted litigation. All other allegation made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

4.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.

5.       On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Karan Kohli, working for gain at M/s Whirlpool India Limited as Ex.OP2/1.

6.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant as well as Opposite Party No.2 and also gone through the record.

7.       Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator, Model No.702 FDBM (570) litre) for an amount of Rs.1,13,000/- from Opposite Party No.1. After few days from the purchase of said refrigerator, the same was not working properly as there are defects i.e. it did not defrost the ice and there was electric shock in the said refrigerator. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties many times with a request to replace the refrigerator with new one, but to no effect.

8.       On the other hand, it is not denied by Opposite Party No.2 that there is some defect in the refrigerator of the complainant, but it has been contended that as the refrigerator in question is out of warranty so, the Opposite Party No.2 is ready to repair or replace the refrigerator of the complainant as per their deprecation policy. Contended that the complainant made a request for replacement of refrigerator with new one, when the representative of Opposite Party No.2 told him that it can be possible under depreciation policy and his request for replacement was processed on 30.05.2023 under depreciation policy, but the complainant denied paying depreciation cost. Contended further that the complainant registered his first complaint no.CHA08092360607 dated 23.06.2023 with the customer care service center of the Opposite Party No.2 regarding working of refrigerator and when service engineer said that this service call will be chargeable as comprehensive warranty expired, the complainant refused for the repair.  

9.       The perusal of bill/invoice of the refrigerator in question reveals that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator in question                                                  in the year, 2018 revealing further that the same is out of warranty now, which admittedly is of one year comprehensive and additional nine years for compressor. The complainant has not placed on record any document showing that there was any complaint regarding defrost etc. immediately after the purchase of the refrigerator in question in the year, 2018. From the submission/admission of Opposite Party No.2, it is clear on record that the complainant lodged the complaint with Opposite Parties on 23.06.2023 for the first time. Thus, it is proved that the refrigerator in question is out of warranty period and repair, if any is to be done on chargeable basis as per the Opposite Parties ‘Product Policy’. Also it is contended by Opposite Party No.2 that refrigerator of the complainant is out of warranty, but they are still ready to repair or replace the refrigerator of the complainant subject to their deprecation policy. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate that complainant be directed to approach Opposite Parties for repair or replacement of the refrigerator in question and the Opposite Parties are directed to repair/replace the refrigeration of the complainant as per their repair/deprecation policy.

10.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of in the following terms. The complainant is at liberty to approach the Opposite Parties for getting his refrigerator repaired on payment basis, as the same is out of warranty or if he opts for the replacement of the same, the Opposite Parties are then directed to replace the same as per their ‘Replacement Policy/Depreciation policy’. In case, the complainant selects upgrade model, then he is liable to pay the balance payment and if he opts downgrade model, then Opposite Parties will adjust the amount of old refrigerator in the bill of new refrigerator as per their deprecation policy. Since, the Opposite Parties have not placed on record the document regarding their depreciation policy, so they are under obligation to show the same to the complainant at the time of replacement of the product in question. Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties next within 30 days from the date the complainant approach them with opted option. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission