BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.524 of 2015
Date of Instt. 11.12.2015
Date of Decision: 28.11.2017
Kulwinder Singh son of Shri Kahan Singh, resident of 30-Green Avenue, Model Town, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Whirlpool of India Limited, Whirlpool House, Plot No.4C, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its authorized signatory.
Croma Electronics Megha Store, Ground Floor, Plot No.687-L, Model Town, Ground and Lower, Jalandhar-144003.
Croma Retail a Tata Enterprise, Corporate Office Unit No.701 & 702, 7th Floor, Kelidonia Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharastra-400-069.
..….…Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Palwinder Singh, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Balraj Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.
OP No.2 and 3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein stated that the complainant purchased a Washing Machine through invoice No.SLF02A071010003703 on 31.12.2011 having item code 1688327 item description Whirlpool W/M TL 8Kg 360H-GRA for Rs.25,190/-, from the OP No.2. At the time of purchase of the item, the OP No.2 gave two years extended warranty in addition to two years warranty given in ordinary manner and as such, the product is covered under four years warranty. The OP No.2 assured the complainant that in case of any kind of defect in the said product, the OP will replace the said product with new one. After about two days of the purchase of the said product, the PC of the said washing machine was not working in proper condition and the complainant approached the OP No.2 for removing the said defect in the product and also requested the OP No.2 to check the above said product thoroughly. But the OP No.2 did not remove the said defect properly and the product again did not work properly and created problems for the complainant. The complainant made complaints to the OPs for removing the said defect from the washing machine or to replace the said product. The few complaints made to the OPs on 02.01.2012, 18.12.2013, 30.12.2014, 08.04.2015 and then on 23.07.2015, 17.10.2015 and lastly on 27.10.2015. Inspite of the above said complaints, the OP did not pay any heed towards the genuine requests of the complainant and also did not remove the said defect in the product or to replace the product as assurance was given by OP No.2.
2. That the complainant purchased the above said Washing Machine from the OPs in lieu of consideration and comes under the definition of 'Consumer' and as such, the OPs are fully responsible to replace the product in question. Moreover, as the product is still under warranty. The complainant has been harassed and humiliated by the OPs and as such, the complainant is entitled to damages and loss due to negligence in services on the part of the OPs to Rs.30,000/- and also to get Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses from the OPs alongwith the replacement of the said Washing Machine with a new one. The complainant is residing at the above said address within the jurisdiction of this Forum and as such, the instant complaint filed with prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the above said product i.e. washing machine of the complainant as stated above and further prayed that a compensation of Rs.30,000/- as charges for harassment, mental torture and agony be also awarded to the complainant despite that litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- be also awarded in favour of the complainant.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 and 3 did not come present and ultimately, they were proceeded against exparte, whereas the OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is baseless, malafide and motivated. It is an abuse of the process of law. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering OP. The complaint against the answering OP is misconceived. The complaint is liable to be dismissed to this ground alone and further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable as the allegations of deficiency of service as leveled by the complainant is baseless and without any substance. It is submitted that the complainant himself failed to adhere to the terms of warranty despite giving consent to the same that too at the time of purchasing the product in question i.e. Washing Machine. The complaint merits dismissal on this ground alone and further alleged that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum as the present complaint is absolutely silent about the sincere efforts put by the answering OP and further submitted that the complainant purchased the said Washing Machine with two years warranty. The warranty period got expired on 01.01.2014 and further alleged that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and misstated the facts for the reason best known to him. The Washing Machine in question purchased by the complainant on 02.01.2012 with two years warranty. It is submitted that as long as the product remains under the warranty the service is provided by the answering OP without any charge, but once the warranty is over, a customer requires to pay for the service rendered by the OP and further alleged that in the present case, the answering OP is more than willing to serve the complainant provided charges for the same is to be paid by the complainant, but the complainant despite knowing the fact that the said Washing Machine is out of warranty and hence, he needs to pay for the services and not only refused to pay but hurriedly rushed to this Forum and filed the complaint. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the Washing Machine is admitted, but the allegation in regard to deficiency in service and others are categorically denied and further admitted that the complainant made the complaints on 18.12.2013, 30.12.2014 and 08.04.2015 and all are attended by the OPs, but the remaining complaints as mentioned by the complainant in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, an opportunity was given to the OP No.1 to lead evidence, but OP No.1 failed to produce any evidence and ultimately, evidence of the OP No.1 closed by order on 27.10.2017.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. After hearing argument and from scanning of the case file, it has been established on the file that the complainant has purchased a Washing Machine, vide invoice Ex.C1 dated 01.01.2012 for an amount of Rs.25,190/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the date of invoice has been wrongly mentioned by the complainant in para No.2 of the complaint i.e. 31.12.2011, whereas as per invoice, it is 01.01.2012 and these factum have been also described by the OP No.1 in para No.3 of the preliminary objection. Further, the complainant alleged that two years extended warranty was given to the complainant and as such, if included two years ordinary warranty and two years extended warranty, the total warranty period of the product is four years, but the main plea of the OP No.1 is only that there was two years warranty period, which was got expired on 01.01.2014 and if any defect occurred after 01.01.2014, then the complainant has to pay the charges of the repair as well as cost of any spare parts, but this version of the OP No.1 is not true one because if we go through the invoice Ex.C1, wherein two years extended warranty period is mentioned. So, it means that the version of the complainant is true that there is four years warranty and it is also admitted by the OP that three complaints dated 18.12.2013, 27.10.2014 and 08.04.2015 were received, but the same were attended and defect was cured. So for the other complaints referred by the complainant are categorically denied but now, we came to conclusion that the OP No.1 has itself admitted that there was some defect in the machine on the basis of last complaint dated 08.04.2015, but what was the defect and whether it was cured by the OP No.1 or not, for that purpose, the OP has to bring on the file some documentary evidence, which shows that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, being reason they have not provided service for repair of the Washing Machine, so purchased by the complainant. It is admitted fact that the complainant has not been able to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the Washing Machine and as such, the complainant is not entitled for replacement or refund of the price rather complainant is entitled to get repaired the said Washing Machine from the OP, free of cost being it was within warranty period on 08.04.2015.
8. In the light of above detailed discussion, we came to conclusion that the complainant is able to prove the allegations in regard to defect in the Washing Machine and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to repair the Washing Machine of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7000/- to the complainant for harassment, mental torture and OPs are also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
28.11.2017 Member President
