CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.605/2010
SH. KRISHNA CHAURASIA
S/O SH. SHRI RAM NARAYAN
R/O H-334, SANJAY COLONY
OKHLA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-110020
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S SALUJA ENTERPRISES,
1655/15 GOVINDPURI,
NEW DELHI-110019
- WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LIMITED,
28 NIT FARIDABAD, HARYANA
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 24.02.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator on 21.04.2009 for a sum of Rs.10,700/- from OP-1, dealer of OP-2, manufacturer of the refrigerator. The refrigerator was not working properly since its purchase. A complaint was made in this regard to OP-1 on 02.07.2009. OP-1 asked complainant to report the matter to OP-2. Accordingly complaint was made to OP-2. On 02.08.2009, an employee of OP-2 visited the residence of complainant and after seeing the refrigerator demanded Rs.1,800/- for its repair. The refrigerator was under warranty however in order to save harassment, complainant paid Rs.1,800/- for the repair of the refrigerator.
It is further stated that even thereafter the refrigerator was not functioning properly and accordingly the complaint was made to OP-2 on 19.06.2010, 05.10.2010 and 10.10.2010 however nobody visited the residence of complainant for repair of the refrigerator. Ultimately one Sh. Param Pal, engineer of OP-2 visited the residence of complainant and informed that the refrigerator cannot be repaired without taking it to workshop and for that it will cost Rs.2500/-. Complainant refused to pay the aforesaid amount as the same was to be repaired free of cost being within warranty period. It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is prayed that OPs be directed to replace the refrigerator and also pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation.
Nobody appeared for OP-1 despite service. OP-1 was proceeded ex parte.
OP-2 in the reply took the plea that complainant has intentionally concealed the material fact that the freezer has been punctured by the complainant due to the mis-handling on his part resulting in the leakage of the gas from the compressor. It is stated that when a fault occurs due to mishandling, the warranty cover for repair or rectification of such fault per se lapses and consequently no benefit under the said warranty cover remains available to the consumer. So far as number of complaints made by the complainant are concerned, it is stated that the employee of OP-2 always visited the residence of complainant and demanded money for the repair of the refrigerator which the complainant refused to pay the charges. It is stated that the refrigerator was repaired on 02.8.09 only. On 19.06.2010 a complaint was lodged with OP and by that time the warranty was only in respect of compressor. During inspection it was found that gas of refrigerator choked and refrigerator was being repaired from local market. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-02 hence the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is an admitted fact that the employee of OP-2 visited the premises of complainant on 02.08.09 and charged Rs.1,800/- for filling the gas. It is stated that the same was charged as the leakage was due to the mis-handling of the refrigerator by the complainant and the same was not covered under warranty. The onus was on the OP to prove that the freezer was punctured as a result of which the gas leaked. OP-2 has not placed any document on record to show that the freezer was mishandled by the complainant. There is no question of charging on 02.08.2009 as admittedly the refrigerator was under warranty. The second complaint was made on 19.06.10 however by that time the warranty was over because the warranty period was for one year and there was four years warranty for the compressor only. It was not the case that there was any defect in the compressor. The leakage of the gas was not on account of defect in the compressor and OP was justified in charging the amount for repairing the refrigerator after the warranty period but definitely there was deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 in charging the amount for repairing the refrigerator during warranty period.
The interest of justice will suffice if OP-2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,800/- taken from complaint for repairing the refrigerator with 9% interest from 02.08.2009 and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
