BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.442 of 2015

Date of Instt. 12.10.2015

Date of Decision: 27.09.2017

Amit Khera, aged 28 years, son of Sh. R. L. Khera, r/o House No.778-A, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd., having its Corporate Office at Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana)

2. M/s Croma- The Electric Mega Store, Satya Sai Towers, Ground Floor, Model Town, Plot No.687-L, Ground and Lower, Jalandhar.

3. M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd., Having its Authorized Service Centre 135/11, Gali No.11, Central Town, Jalandhar.

….… Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Manish Sidana, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Balraj Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 3.

OP No.2 given up.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased a Whirlpool W/M TL SW 7.2 Kg FG, fully automatic washing machine, make whirlpool from the OP No.2, vide invoice No.SAF02A071010000518 dated 16.10.2013, for a sum of Rs.20,690/- and the complainant paid the entire sale amount to the OP No.2. The OP No.2 assured the complainant that the Washing Machine in question is having a guarantee of two years from the date of its purchase and the OP No.1 and 2 will be responsible for the replacement of the parts during the period of guarantee at their own costs and in case, the defect is not cured in any manner, then the OP No.1and 2 will get the defective washing machine replaced with a new washing machine. The OP No.2 further assured the complainant that the washing machine is of a superior quality and best in class and the OPs shall provide effective service to the complainant in case of any complaint in respect of the washing machine in question. The complainant thus, purchased the washing machine on the assurances of the OPs.

2. That the complainant has been regularly getting service done of the washing machine from the OP No.3 from time to time. The washing machine of the complainant had been giving problem and the information in that regard was duly communicated to the OP No.3. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has been getting the washing machine repaired only from the OP No.3, which is the authorized service centre of Whirlpool of India Ltd. Company. That again a problem occurred in the washing machine in question and the washing machine suddenly stopped running. The complainant registered his complaint on the customer care No.1800 208 1800 of the OP No.1 on 03.09.2015 and the complainant stated the facts about the non-running and non-working of the washing machine in question and in response to the registration of complaint filed by the complainant, the complainant was given the SR number i.e. the complaint No.CH0915000866 and the complainant received the message in that regard on his registered mobile No.98760-79007 on 03.09.2015.

3. That inspite of registration of the complaint, the representative of the OP No.3 did not visit to see the washing machine and to repair the same. The complainant again contacted the customer care on 08.09.2015 and stated about his grievances about the non-cordial attitude of the company and on the complaint of the complainant, the representative of the OP No.3 visited the premises of the complainant and examined the washing machine of the complainant and stated that there is a major defect in the washing machine and the defective part is required to be changed so as to properly run the machine. He further assured that in case the defect in the washing machine, is not cured and as the washing machine is still under guarantee, the company shall replace the defective washing machine of the complainant with a new one. The representative of the OP No.3 went back after seeing the condition of the washing machine, but till date, no one has turned up again to repair the washing machine of the complainant, which is not working since last more than a month. The complainant has been regularly calling and representing the senior executive of the customer care of the company namely Mr. Ashutosh, and the customer care has been assuring the complainant that the defective washing machine of the complainant will be repaired in a day or two. But the assurances of the representative of the company have fallen on ground miserably and the assurances of the company have turned out to be totally false one, which is causing mental harassment, agony and financial loss to the complainant. The complainant had purchased the washing machine for his utility, but the services provided by the OPs, have made the utility as his liability and at present the washing machine is nothing but an empty box without any purpose and the OPs are wholly and solely responsible for the loss and harassment being suffered by the complainant. The complainant has also got served a legal notice dated 01.10.2015 through registered post on all the OPs, and the said legal notice has been duly served upon the OPs, but inspite of service of the legal notice, the OPs did not pay any heed to the said legal notice. Hence the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the defective washing machine with a new one or refund the amount of the washing machine and further OPs be directed to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant at the hands of the OPs, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and also be directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OP No.1 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, frivolous and devoid of any merits. A plain reading of the complaint makes it abundantly clear that the same has been hurriedly filed as it lacks substance or any foundation whatsoever. The complaint merits dismissed on this ground alone and further averred that the present complaint is abuse of the sacrosanct provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The malafide intention of the complainant is writ large on face of the complaint itself as the allegations leveled by the complainant are not tenable and further submitted that the answering OPs are duty bound to provide service to the complainant with respect to the WM in accordance with the terms and conditions and has never failed to fulfill its duty and further submitted that in response with the last complaint of the complainant dated 03.09.2015, service engineer of the OP inspected the washing machine and found that the PCB was required to be replaced but at that point of time PCB was not available therefore the complainant was assured that it would be replaced and accordingly it was replaced on 17.10.2015 that too with assent of the complainant and thereafter the washing machine became fully functional and the complainant himself was completely satisfied and further submitted that the answering OP has not indulged into any unfair trade practice nor there is any deficiency of service/negligence on the part of the OP. On merits, the purchase of the automatic washing machine by the complainant is admitted but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove his case, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 i.e. Bill dated 16.10.2013 and Ex.C2 i.e. Copy of Message and then closed the evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.1 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA and thereafter the evidence of the OP No.1 and 3 closed by order, vide order dated 16.05.2017.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. After considering the argument of both the counsel for the parties as well as scanning of the pleading, it reveals that the factum in regard to purchase of Whirlpool automatic washing machine from OP No.2, vide invoice dated 16.10.2013, for a sum of Rs.20,690/-, is not denied by the OPs rather these factum have been also established by the complainant by producing on the file invoice/bill Ex.C1 and furthermore, the complaint of the complainant in regard to occur a defect in the said washing machine is also not denied by the OP rather the OP alleged in para No.3 of the preliminary objection that after receiving a complaint on 03.09.2015, the service engineer properly inspected the washing machine and found out that the PCB was required to be replaced and accordingly the same was replaced on 17.10.2015, but despite replacing the said PCB, the version of the complainant is that the washing machine is still not working properly and it has some mechanical defect and made a request for replacement of the automatic washing machine. As the allegation of the complainant that there is a defect in the automatic washing machine and the same has been allegedly cured by the OP as stated in the written statement but in order to establish this fact that the said defect was cured by the mechanic/engineer of the OP, the OP has to produce the affidavit of the said engineer on the file in evidence to establish that the said engineer has rectified the defect but for the best known reason, the OP has not brought on the file the affidavit of the said engineer, who visited the house of the complainant and checked the washing machine. So, in the absence of like this expert evidence, it is not established on the part of the OP that the defect whatsoever occurred in the machine is cured. So, with these observation, we are of the opinion that the automatic washing machine of the complainant required a necessary repair for proper functioning and also find much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant.

9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly accepted and OP No.1 and 3 are directed to repair the defective washing machine of the complainant and remove all the defects there-from because the washing machine is under warranty and further OP No.1 and 3 are directed to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. 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

27.09.2017 Member President