Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/307

Nitin Chiiba - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Whirlpool India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajan Arora

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 307 dated 18.11.2020.                                                                 Date of decision: 24.01.2023.

 

Nitin Chiiba S/o. Late Sh. Trilok Nath Chhibba, R/o. H. No.75, Kartar Nagar, Mode Gram, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                          .…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Whirlpool India Limited, Plot No.A-4 MIDC, Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirur, Dist. Pune, Maharashtra-412220 through its Chair Person.
2. M/s. Raipur Electronics Private Limited, Chandigarh Road, B-30-4167, Beantpura, Hargobind Nagar, Ludhiana through its Director.                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties 

                   Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rajan Arora, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Amrit Singh, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that opposite party No.1 being manufacturer of different kinds of electronics goods i.e. Air-conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines and ROs selling the same in the market through its dealers as we as opposite party No.2 who is also selling different kinds of electronics products like LEDs, refrigerator, washing machines, ROs/water purifier etc. to its customers. On 10.02.2020, the complainant purchased a Whirlpool-W/P-Purasense-RO+UF+UV+Auto TDS along with Pre Filter from opposite party No.2 manufactured by opposite party No.1, vide invoice No.CRP/SA1920/02546 for a sum of Rs.14,280/- with one year warranty. At that time, opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that in the event of any defect in the said RO within warranty period, service will be provided free of cost by the duly authorized service centre of opposite party No.1. The complainant further stated that after one day from the day of installation of the RO, he noticed that the RO is defective one and is not running properly and is not filtering the water. The faults in the RO were brought into the notice of opposite party No.2 who told that the above said problems will automatically sought-out after the use of RO for some time. However, a service engineer also visited the spot of installation of RO twice and he also observed that the RO has not been properly installed by the concerned technical official of opposite party No.1. Even after a gap of one week, the RO was not running properly and was not filtering the water due to which the complainant started facing problems in his life due to non filter of water which is also a basic amenity in the present days. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2 and told about the defects upon which concerned official of opposite party No.2 again assured him to look into the matter and further advised the complainant to register his request/complaint with the helpdesk of opposite party No.1 where the complainant registered his complaint/request with opposite party No.1 on 17.02.2020 vide service request No.CH170220986120. The official assured the complainant that the defective RO shall be replaced with new one within 15 days but despite waiting for one month none visited the complainant for the purpose to replace the defective RO with new one. The complainant time and again called the concerned officials for the purpose of replacing the defective RO but to no effect. Even opposite party No.2 has failed to pay any heed despite repeated requests made by the complainant. Even the complainant sent emails to the officials of the helpdesk on 09.05.2020, 16.05.2020 and 20.05.2020 but to no effect. The complainant also requested the concerned officials that due to outbreak of Covid-19, it is not possible for him to survive without water and pandemic is also at full swing but the complainant did not receive any reply from the opposite parties. The complainant had to purchase water bottles to live his livelihood as it was not possible for the complainant and his family members to drink non-filtered water and due to which the complainant had to purchase new RO during that span. The acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant had suffered harassment, mental pain and agony. The complainant served a legal notice dated 20.08.2020 upon the opposite parties through his counsel Sh. Rajan Arora, Advocate to refund an amount of Rs.14,280/- the amount of defective RO and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for having suffered mental pain, harassment and agony at the hands of opposite parties due to deficiency in service on their part but no reply was given by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint whereby it has been prayed for reimbursement of Rs.14,280/- being cost of the RO along with compensation of RS.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Notice was sent to opposite party No.2 through registered post on 07.12.2020 but none turned up for the opposite party No.2 despite service of legal notice and as such, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.03.2021.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement assailing the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is a gross misuse of the process of law, suppression of material facts and misstatement of facts. Opposite party No.1 alleged that its only obligation was to set the RO right by repairing or replacing the machine and the complainant cannot claim for more than he has agreed at the time of buying the RO as per the terms of the warranty. Opposite party never denied for providing after sale service and the process to replace the RO was already initiated and completed after taking consent from the complainant. However, it is the complainant who gave no response when he was approached by their representatives. The replacement process was completed much before filing of this complaint and it was in the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant had filed this premature complaint with malafide intention to extract money from opposite party.

                   On merits, opposite party No.1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of invoice dated 10.02.2020 of Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ex. C2 to Ex. C7 are the copies of screen short of text messages, Ex. C8 to Ex. C10 are the copies of emails, Ex. C11 is the legal notice dated 20.08.2020, Ex. C12 and Ex. C13 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other hand, opposite party No.1 failed to produce any evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities and as such evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed by order vide order dated 16.12.2022.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply produced on record by both the parties.

7.                Perusal of record shows that opposite party No.1 in its reply denied the allegations of the complainant by alleging that he has never denied providing its after sale service. However, opposite party No.1 has failed to place any documentary evidence which proves the truthness of this statement. On the other hand, the complainant made several requests to opposite party No.1 (copies of screen shot of text messages/request as Ex. C2 to C7) vide which he only got assurance from the opposite parties but they did not pay attention to the genuine/sincere requests of the complainant nor they made any efforts to resolve the grievance of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant again communicated through emails Ex. C8 to Ex. C10 but to no effect.

8.                From the evidence produced on record by the complainant as well as documents on record, it is proved that the complainant had purchased water filter (RO) from the opposite parties vide invoice No.CRP/SA1920/02546 dated 10.02.2020 for Rs.14,280/- which fact is further corroborated from the invoice Ex. C1. Further it is  proved that after the installation of water filter in question, the complainant had noticed that the filter was not functioning properly and when the complainant had brought this fact into the notice of the officials of opposite party No.1, they had assured the complainant that as and when the filter will run, the same will start functioning properly. However, as per the allegations in the complaint, the same was not working properly and the complainant had to lodge several complaints with the opposite parties but they failed to perform their duty. The refusal to redress the grievance of the complainant on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act that any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes:-

          (i)      any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person                which causes loss or injury to the consumer”

Moreover, it is the legal obligation of the opposite parties to provide better maintenance service to the complainant qua the water filter in case their product is not working properly. In its complaint, the complainant has submitted that he has to purchase new RO during this period. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.14,280/- price of the RO to the complainant along with composite cost of Rs.3000/-.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the amount of Rs.14,280/- to the complainant with a condition that the complainant will return the RO purchased by him from the opposite parties vide invoice Ex. C1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and thereafter, the opposite party shall pay aforesaid amount of Rs.14,280/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of RO in question from the complainant failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

Monika Bhagat)           (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Nitin Chiiba Vs M/s. Whirlpool India Limited                          CC/20/307

 

Present:       Sh. Rajan Arora,  Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Amrit Singh, Advocate for OP1.

                   OP2 exparte.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the amount of Rs.14,280/- to the complainant with a condition that the complainant will return the RO purchased by him from the opposite parties vide invoice Ex. C1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and thereafter, the opposite party shall pay aforesaid amount of Rs.14,280/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of RO in question from the complainant failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

Monika Bhagat)           (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.