DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Rashi Adlakha wife of Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate, r/o H.No. 3053, sector 28-D, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs

1]   M/s Whirlpool of India Limited, Whirlpool House, Plot No. 40, Sector 44, Gurgaon – 122002 Haryana through its Chairman/ Managing Director.

2]   Chairman/ Managing Director, M/s Whirlpool of India Limited, Whirlpool House, Plot No. 40, Sector 44, Gurgaon – 122002 Haryana.

3]   M/s Kitchen Maker’s, SCO No. 455-456, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-c, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/ Partner Mr. Roopak.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA             PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Arjanbir Singh, Counsel for Complainant.

Ms. Geeta Gulati, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.        The instant complaint relates to inability of the Opposite Parties to provide after sales service to the Complainant for the products manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1.

          Factually speaking, the Complainant had purchased a built-in Dish Washer and built-in Electric Kitchen Hobs manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 in January 2008, from Opposite Party No. 3. The Complainant has stated that in the past three years, she was unable to get a demo of the products from the Opposite Parties, despite various verbal and written requests to the Opposite Parties. On account of lackadaisical attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant had even issued a legal notice dated 09.02.2011 for redressal of her grievance. However, the Dish Washer is still lying non-functional. Even the electric kitchen hobs are also non-functional to a large extent as a small part of it only is operative. The Complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint, with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund the consideration paid towards the defective Dish Washer and Vitro-Ceramic Hobs along with interest and compensation. 

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.        The Opposite Parties in their joint reply have taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant has used the product for the complete stretch of warranty and has now dragged the answering Opposite Parties into litigation. Opposite Parties have submitted that the demo request of the Complainant could not be entertained as the product’s warranty had expired and the Complainant was required to pay for the demo request, which was refused by the Complainant (Annexure R-1). The Complainant has also concealed the fact that the answering Opposite Parties had already replaced the produce once on 29.11.2008 (Annexure R-2). It is a company’s policy that the replaced produce would be covered under the warranty period of the original product. 

          On merits, Opposite Parties have contended that they have already replaced the product once to the complete satisfaction of the Complainant. The demo requests were not attended as the warranty had expired and the Complainant refused to pay for the visiting charges. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.        Annexure C-1 is the bill placed on record by the Complainant issued by the Opposite Party No.3. On this bill an amount of Rs.35,566/- + VAT has been charged from the Complainant for the Dish Washer. The allegations of the Complainant relate to alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties as the requests for demo by the Complainant have not been satisfied by the Opposite Parties. The e-mails placed on record by the Complainant are dated 8.12.2010 and Dec. 2009, while the legal notice is dated 9.2.2011. The date of sale of the product is 21.01.2008. The warranty period for the machine is not on record. As per the documents placed on record by the Opposite Parties, the machine was replaced on 29.11.2008. Annexure R-1 shows the date of purchase/ replacement of the Dish washer and Hob as 13.10.2008 and 19.10.2008 respectively. All documents attached with the complaint make a pointer to the inability of the Opposite Parties to provide a free demo for the Dish Washer and Hob purchased by the Complainant from Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Parties have not denied the demo, but have specifically stated that the Complainant has been using the products regularly also as the warranty period has expired, they can provide the service on payment only. We do not feel that the Opposite Parties have committed any deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant by taking this stand. The Complainant has stated that she has been running from pillar to post to get a demo, so that the products could be utilized. The communication gap between the parties seems to be a cause of the grievance and frustration of the Complainant. However, the Opposite Parties have not placed any document on record that they had ever provided the needed initial demo to the Complainant. The machine has already been replaced once though the reason for replacement has not been given by any of the parties.

7.        The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a social benefit legislation and accordingly, benefit to the consumer should be given wherever possible.

8.        Looking at the situation, we deem it appropriate to allow this Complaint, with a direction to the Opposite Parties to provide a free demo to the satisfaction of the Complainant to get the machinery operative.

9.        In case the machinery is now spoilt due to non-use/ non-operation, the Opposite Parties as a positive step should refund the invoice price, after deducting adequate depreciation.  In case, this situation arises, the Opposite Parties are directed to refund the invoice price of the Dish Washer and Hob, after deducting depreciation @15% per annum, on the depreciated value each year, from the initial date of purchase i.e. January, 2008 (Annexure C-1) to the date of this order. The Complainant shall in this situation return the machines to the Opposite Parties, on receipt of this amount forthwith. No costs.        

10.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th October, 2012.                                             

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

 MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”