DATE OF DISPOSAL: 20.06.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed complaint U/S 35 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for redressal of his grievances rendering of deficient services by the O.Ps and sought following reliefs:-
- Directing the O.Ps to pay Rs.25,000/- for compensation for mental agony, harassment and waste of valuable time plus Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
- Granting such other or further relief as the court deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant purchased a whirlpool refrigerator vide No. NEOSP305PRM NEODUTCH 2S-N 21331 from O.P.No.1 on 22.01.2020 vide invoice No. BER-S0002900. The said refrigerator has one year warranty/guarantee up to 22.12.2021. After using of some days, the door of the whirlpool refrigerator does not functioning properly for which the coolness inside the refrigerator goes on decreasing. Thereafter the complainant approached O.P.No.1 who had given assurance to rectify the defect within a short period but remained silence. After several approaches, as per instructions of the O.P.No.1 the complainant send messages to the O.P.No.1 & 2 on 03.09.2021. In reply the O.P.No.1 & 2 assured to the complainant to rectify the defect of the product or alternatively exchange a new one of the product is within the warranty/guarantee period. But all the O.Ps remained silence since last 12 months for which the complainant deprived from, using of the product. Hence all the O.Ps are involving in unfair trade practice and deceiving the customer by not settling the defect products.
3. Admitting the complaint, the Commission issued notices to the Opposite Parties.
4. Duly acknowledging the notices, the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument including relevant documents.
5. The O.P.No.1 started in its written version that, there is no grievance against O.P.No.1. The answering O.P.No.1 is a dealer only. The O.P.No.1 is neither the manufacturer nor after sale service provider. Accordingly the O.P.No.1 advised the complainant to send complaint to the whirlpool company. It is the usual purchase in every company that after sale the manufacture and sale service provider are competent to remove the defects, if any defect is pointed out in the concerned refrigerator. In that view, the O.P.No.1 is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the dispute raised by the complainant. In view of facts and circumstances, the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint case with cost.
6. Similarly the O.P.No. 2 & 3 filed their written version and written argument jointly that there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased a refrigerator of whirlpool make from the O.P.No.1 vide invoice No. BER-S0002900 on 22.12.2020 for Rs.25,000/-. The said refrigerator was installed in the premises of the complainant on 25.12.2020 vide job sheet No. BHU-25122084980. After acknowledge the complaint No. BHU30032140213 on 03.09.2021, the O.P.No.2 deputed its expert technician and found that’s there is gasket problem in the refrigerator since said part was not immediately available with the service centre, the technician promised the complainant to replace the said part free of cost after obtaining the part from the Bhubaneswar Branch without further delay. Since the part is not available with the company, the O.P nos.2 & 3 decided to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with the same model. But when the same model was not available, the O.P.No.2 requested to O.P.No.3 to send same model refrigerator to the dealer O.P.No.1 for free replacement. Accordingly the O.P.No.3 sent the said specific model refrigerator to the O.P.No.1. When the O.P.No.1 approached the complainant to allow the O.P.No.2 to install the new refrigerator of the same model and fix a day as per his convenience but the complainant refused to do so. Thereafter also the complainant not cooperated deliberately with the O.Ps for replacement. Now the said model is with the O.P.No.1 since 05.11.2021. The O.P.No.2 and 3 has requested the complainant several times through its Zonal Service Manager for early replacement of the refrigerator but the complainant is adamant and is not allowing replace his defective refrigerator, thereby intentionally delaying the process of replacement. Hence, the O.P.No. 2 & 3 is sincere and honest and not put its customer in any sort of harassment and inconvenience. The O.P. No.2 & 3 with immediate steps to help the complainant as per his desire and full satisfaction and has done it at the earliest possible time. The O.P.No.2 and 3 has not committed any latches or negligence in service. Thus the O.Ps are of no fault and within 2 months time period the O.Ps made ready a new refrigerator to exchange with the defective refrigerator of the complainant. Therefore, the O.P.No.2 & 3 prayed that the Hon’ble Commission may pass by directing the complainant to allow/access to his premises to the engineers of the Service centre of O.P.N o.2 & 3 for installation of the new refrigerator of the same model and return the old refrigerator to the visiting engineers. It is further prayed that the O.Ps be not punished by imposing any compensation and/or cost in view of the fact that the O.Ps are sincere and honest to replace the refrigerator of the complainant and are never negligent.
7. On the date of final hearing learned counsel for the complainant was present, whereas the O.Ps are absent on calls. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted specifically that the final order may pass on merit of the case.
8. The Commission perused the complaint, written versions of the O.Ps, evidence on affidavits, written arguments of both the parties and available documents in the case record minutely.
On analysis of evidences adduced by both parties, the Opposite Parties are ready to replace the defective refrigerator with a similar new refrigerator. And the engineers of O.P.No.2 & 3 have approached the complainant as per delivery Challan bearing No.912195002165/ dated 05.11.2021 as Annexure-1 and the complainant refused them to do so and also did not allow the engineers to his premises to install the new refrigerator. It is apparent from the case record that the complainant has not challenged the genuineness of the Annexure-1 of O.P.No.2 & 3 and also not objected the written version of the O.Ps in his evidence. It seems that, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the O.Ps in the instance case.
Considering the above submissions of the parties, the Commission allowed the complaint partly on contest against the O.P.No.2 & 3 and dismissed against the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.2 & 3 is directed to replace the defective refrigerator of the complainant as per Annexure-1 and in such event the complainant is directed to allow the authorized engineers of the O.P.No.2 & 3 to install the new refrigerator and returned the defective refrigerator to the authorized engineers of the O.P.No.2 & 3. The O.P.No.2 & 3 are directed to carry out the above order appropriately within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order and report the Commission about the compliance of the order. In the event of non-compliance of the above order by the O.P.No.2 & 3 the complainant is at liberty to execute the order by filing of execution application under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 20.06.2024
