Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/186

Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.K.Sooden

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:186 dated 01.04.2021.                                                         Date of decision: 18.07.2023.

Surinder Singh, aged 50 years, son of Malkit Singh, resident of Village Sohian, Opposite Sidhwan Kalan, Near Jagraon G.T. Road, Tehsil Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Whirlpool India Limited, Plot No.A-4, MIDC Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirpur, District Pune, Maharashtra-412220 through its Directors/Manager/Authorized Person.
2. M/s. Whirlpool India Limited, Whirlpool House, Plot o.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana through its Director/Managers/Authorized Person.
3. M/s. Jindal Electronics, Sudhar Bazar, Sudhar, Tehsil Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana through its Prop./Partner/Authorized person.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Prince Sharma, Advocate.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Amrit Singh, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Sh. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one washing machine make Whirlpool Fully Auto D/M from opposite party No.3 vide invoice No.1302 dated 30.12.2019 but the same was not working properly from the very beginning. The complainant made a complaint through SMS vide request No.19012151590 and one part of washing machine i.e. PC was replaced by the authorized person of the opposite parties. The complainant stated that thereafter the washing machine again started showing same defect and same was not washing the clothes and drier of washing machine was not working. The complainant made a complaint through SMS and service request No.13102096593 was issued to him but the defect was not rectified. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 with request to change the washing machine but herefused to listen the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant also issued a legal notice dated 25.02.2021 through his counsel upon the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the washing machine and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- but they failed to comply with the notice. Thus, the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and have rendered deficient services to the complainant. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties to replace the washing machine with a new one and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come with clean hands, the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant has no cause of action, the complainant has not disclosed the true facts etc. Opposite party No.1 and 2 stated that they set the washing machine right under the terms and conditions of the warranty. The complaint of the complainant was properly attended by the engineers of authorized service station.  

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties submitted that they received first complaint no.CHA02122032495 dated 02.12.2020 on registered toll free number which was after one year of purchase of washing machine. The complaint was sorted out by replacing the P.C.B. Each and every concern of the complaint was duly and promptly attended and it is the complainant who himself is not willing to take care of the terms of warranty. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Opposite party No.3 filed separate written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability of the complaint, suppression of true and material facts etc.  Opposite party No.3 stated that the complainant himself showed his desire to purchase Whirlpool Fully Auto D/M Washing Machine manufactured by opposite party No.1 and 2 and after examining the same, the complainant purchased the washing machine vide invoice No.1302 dated 30.12.2019 and at that time, it was made clear to the complainant that warranty of washing machine always stands on behalf of the company and in case of replacement or repair then the same will be done by the company i.e. opposite party No.1 and 2.  According to opposite party No.3, these terms and conditions have also been incorporated in sale invoice No.1302. However, after the purchase of washing machine, the complainant never visited opposite party No.3 nor made any complaint.

                   On merits, opposite party No.3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.3 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 his 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 No.1302 dated 30.12.2019, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the copies of  text messages, Ex. C4 is the copy of legal notice dated 25.02.2021, Ex. C5 to Ex. C7 are the postal receipts, Ex. C8 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, Sh. Sham Jindal, Proprietor of opposite party No.3 tendered his affidavit Ex. RA/3 and closed the evidence. However, opposite party No.1 and 2 failed to tender evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities including last chance and as such, their evidence was closed by order vide order dated 21.02.2023.

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 along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

7.                It is not disputed that the complainant purchased washing machine make Whirlpool Fully Auto D/M from opposite party No.3 vide invoice Ex. C1 bearing No.1302 dated 30.12.2019. It has been claimed that washing machine in question was not working properly since its purchase and on complaint made through SMS, one part of the washing machine i.e. PC was replaced. As per the complainant, the machine again started showing defect and same was not washing the clothes and drier of washing machine was not working. He again submitted complaint through SMS but the defect was not rectified. Even the request for change of washing machine was declined by opposite party No.3. From the product service summary Ex.C1 as well as the stand taken by opposite party No.3 in the written statement, the defense raised by opposite party No.3 is that the in the invoice No.1302 dated 30.12.2019 it was made clear to the complainant that the warranty of washing machine always stands on behalf of the manufacturers and in case of replacement or repair then the same will be done by the company i.e. opposite party No.1 and 2. Opposite party No.3 in its written statement further claimed that these terms and conditions have also been incorporated in sale invoice No.1302. However, in order to substantiate this claim, opposite party No.3 has not furnished any concrete or worthwhile evidence. Besides, the fact remain that the washing machine went out of order within a period of just one month from its purchase i.e. within the period of express warranty. As per invoice Ex. C1, the complainant purchased the washing machine in question for Rs.18,800/- on 30.12.2019 and first complaint was responded by the opposite parties vide SMS dated 02.12.2020 vide complaint No.CHA02122032495. The opposite parties failed to prove the factum of rectifying the defect in the machine by submitting any document in this regard. Even the legal notice Ex. C4 was also served upon the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the machine with new one. So the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

8.                In C.N. Ananthram Vs M/s. Fiat India Ltd. and others 2010 (4) CPJ 56 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby the complainant sought replacement or full refund of the amount along with interest for “defect in the engine of the vehicle”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the replacement of the defective engine with new engine would suffice. Further, in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Sharad and others in 2016 (SCC) NCDRC 1600 whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that whether the vehicle purchased by the complainant suffered certain defects and also used for considerable kilometers, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has held that a new vehicle cannot be replaced and defective part of old vehicle has to be replaced.  In the given set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate, if opposite parties are directed to repair the washing machine comprehensively to the satisfaction of the complainant free of costs and further to pay composite cost of Rs.5,000/-.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to opposite parties  to repair the washing machine in question comprehensively and to make the same fully functional free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.  Liability of the opposite parties are held joint and several. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

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:18.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Surinder Singh Vs M/s. Whirlpool India                        CC/21/186

Present:       Sh. Prince Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Amrit Singh, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

                   Sh. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for OP3.

 

                                Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to opposite parties  to repair the washing machine in question comprehensively and to make the same fully functional free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.  Liability of the opposite parties are held joint and several. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

 

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

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:18.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.