DATE OF FILING : 21.08.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 18.09.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 31.07.2015.
Smt. Anjanava Pandit,
Prantik Saheb Bagan, P.O.Samabay Pally,
District-Howrah,
PIN 711205…………………………………………………………………….Complainant
-Vs.-
1) M/s. Whirlppl of India Ltd.
at Whirlppl House, Plot No. 40, Sector 44,
Gurgaon-122002,
Haryana.
2) Prism Service,
Authorised service centre for Whirlpool India Ltd.,
at 389, G. T. Road, Bally Bazar,
Howrah-711201.
3) Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,
2, G.T. Road, (Kheya Ghat), Uttarpara,
District Hooghly,
PIN 712258.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner, Anjanava Pandit against the O.P.s, M/s Whirlpool India Ltd. and two others, praying for compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- including the consideration, interest and cost of harassment both mental and physical and Rs. 35,000 as litigation cost.
- The case of the petitioner is that she is a consumer of the O.P. and purchased one Refrigerator from O.P. 3, Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. on 18.11.2009 on payment of Rs. 14,500/- . Within a year of purchase rust problem was seen on both the doors of the Freeze resulting which the doors got damaged day by day. She informed the matter to O.P. 3 and asked him to change the defective freeze and the O.P. 3 on 30.10.2010 sent one service engineer who inspected the Freeze in her house and remarked that the Freeze has door rust problem and noted in the service request and same to send to the O.P. service centre.
- The Petitioner wrote to O.P. 1 and on 27.6.2014 one care Manager, Bobi Chand, replied through e.mail asking contact Number of petitioner. But all his efforts in vain and she also suffered physically and mentally and so filed this case.
- The O.P. 1 and 2 though served with notice yet O.P. 2 did not contest the case and O.P. 1 appeared and submitted before the Forum by filing a statement that they are ready for replacement of the machine. O.P. 3 appeared and contested the case and submitted that they simply sold the Freeze to the petitioner and cannot be held liable for the manufacturing defect of the freeze and so the case be dismissed against O.P 3 .
5. On the above cases of the parties the following issues are frame :
- Is the case maintainable in the present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any manufacturing defect in said machine ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
- All this issues are taken up together for the shake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration . In support of her case the petitioner filed affidavit as well as the documents like the cash memo. For Proving the fact that the petitioner purchased the Freeze from the O.P.3, dealer on payment of Rs. 14500/- on 18.11.2009 and she also filed one service request wherein one service engineer, Mr. P. Chakraborty of the O.P.2 on 30.10.2014 endorsed that there was door-rust problem and the e.mail as well as the document in the form of written version filed by O.P. 1 conceded that there was defect in the machine and the O.P. 1 agreed to replace the machine. The petitioner paid for the consideration money of Rs. 14,500/- on 18.11.2009 but could not get the service of the Freeze due to such rust in the door and lastly on 21.8.2014 filed this case.
- In her argument she submitted that the limitation continued as the O.P.s avoiding responsibility and the instant case the act of the O.P.s amounted to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of them when they submitted before Forum that they would replace the machine namely o.p. no. 1, the manufacturer. The petitioner praying for purchase money and litigation cost and compensation . This Forum finds that she entitled to the said amount of Rs. 14,500/- and interest and also compensation and litigation cost from the manufacturer namely o.p. no. 1 as the machine suffered from manufacturing defects.
In view of above discussion and finds the claim case succeeds and the court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the Consumer Case No. 463/2014 be and the same is allowed in contest with cost against the O.P.1 being the manufacturer of the Feeze and the case against O.P. No. 2 & 3 is dismissed without cost. The petitioner is entitled to get his purchased money of Rs. 14,500/- with interest since the date of purchased till realization @ 9% p.a and she is also entitled to Rs. 5000/- as compensation and another 3000/- as litigation charge and the O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay the above sum failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
