Haryana

Panchkula

CC/34/2015

LALIT KUMAR GUPTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS SHARMA.

28 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	34 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	11.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	28.07.2015

                                                                                          

Lalit Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh.B.D.Gupta, Kothi No.595, Sector-16, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. through its Managing Director, Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

2.       Next Retail Shop through its Manager, SCO-355, Sector-9, Panchkula.   

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

                             Mr.Alok Batara, Adv., for the Op No.1.                      

                             Op No.2 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. Lalit Kumar Gupta complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a refrigerator for an amount of Rs.27,454  from the Op No.2 vide bill No.0069270 dated 17.10.2009 (Annexure C 1) on the assurance of OP No.2 that whirlpool is a leading company and that has good support of the back of him and the same was installed at the residence of the complainant by the Ops. After installation, the complainant noticed that the refrigerator had a snag in its working and leakage of drain water on its back which was set right by one mechanic of Op No.2 at the house of the complainant. During the year 2012, the family of the complainant noticed several cracks in the interior side white coloured body and door & wall panels as well as the shelves & drawers and the puff behind the internal body comes out the said inner body. The wife of the complainant made the complaint many times to Op No.2 who told her that OP No.2 has registered the complaint with Op No.1 and the company person would visit at the residence of the complainant to see what had happened. The mechanic of Op No.2 visited the house of the complainant and inspected the said refrigerator and told that there are hair lined impressions of cracks/honey combing which was a part of designing in the inner plastic body and asked for not to worry. In the year 2013, the complainant and his family noticed that the hair lining impressions of cracks/honey combing were increasing and the complainant made a complaint with Op No.2 in writing in the register of Op No.2. The Manager alongwith one mechanic visited the house of the complainant and inspected the refrigerator. After inspection, they found that there were some dark lined hair cracks developed in the inner side whole body of the refrigerator and told that this should not have been so, on such an expensive refrigerator and assured that the issue would be taken with the Op No.1 being its manufacturing defect. The complainant made rounds & rounds and complaints to Op No.2 and also to customer care of Op No.1 telephonically but to no avail. In the meantime, the inner body of the refrigerator from where the cracks developed became hardened & crispy and started falling down and the internal PUF started peeing out. On 04.06.2014, the complainant sent an email (Annexure C 3) to Op No.1 regarding the manufacturing defect and low/poor quality and sub standard material used in the refrigerator but to no avail. On 20.06.2014, the complainant again registered his complaint with Op No.2 in regular register and the complainant was assured that he would get the refrigerator replaced from OP No.1 soon. The complainant again made a representation on the website of Op No.1 on 22.06.2014 (Annexure C 4) but in vain. On complaint dated 20.06.2014 and rounds & rounds to OP No.2, the Op No.2 sent two mechanics to the house of the complainant on 29.07.2014. After inspection, the mechanics of Op No.2 filled up a form and got the pictures/snaps of the refrigerator and assured the complainant that they would move the file with the pictures/snaps to the Op No.1 for the replacement of the refrigerator in the inferior material. On 26.11.2014, the complainant again requested the Op No.2 either to replace the refrigerator or refund the amount but he refused to do so which act and conduct amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant has concealed the facts regarding the period of warranty to the refrigerator one year comprehensively and additional four years for the compressor only and has not mentioned the guarantee period in his complaint. It is submitted that the complainant has never registered any official complaint to the service call center regarding any kind of defect in the refrigerator. It is submitted that the OP No.1 is one of the top renowned manufacturing company of the home appliances in the world and never allured their customer with false and fake promises. It is submitted that the Op No.1 never records complaint regarding cracks in the refrigerator. It is submitted that the Op No.1 has never used any substandard or poor quality material in their product. Every product manufactured by the OP No.1 goes under rigorous quality tests and subsequent when the product passed quality tests only then they sent to the open market for sale. It is submitted that the plastic cracks surfaced after three years of uninterrupted usage of the refrigerator. It is submitted that these cracks in the body might be due to rough and mishandling of the refrigerator. It is denied that the manager alongwith engineer of OP No.1 visited the home of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant has called the customer care of Op No.1. Every call/complaint registered on the customer care service has been assigned to computer generated complaint number. It is submitted that the complainant alleged that he called up the customer care but failed to mention any registered complaint number. It is submitted that the complainant wrote email to the op No.1 but every customer has been given the customer care number but the complainant clearly bypassed the proper channel of registering complaint and email to different wings which has nothing to do with the complaint of the customers. It is submitted that the Op No.1 has never sold any kind of substandard product and carried out in ditch the complainant as well as the customer. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is an authorized dealer of Op No.1. It is submitted that the complainant himself admitted that cracks developed in refrigerator after three to four years of purchase while the warranty of the refrigerator was of one year comprehensively and additional four for the compressor only. It is submitted that the plastic and glass parts were not covered under the warranty as it depends upon how the user used the product. It is submitted that if roughly and not carefully handled plastic as well as glass parts could be broken down. It is submitted that had there been any kind of manufacturing defect in machine in question it would surface in first few weeks of purchase but the defect in the refrigerator of complainant developed after three to four years. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on the record.
4. Though there are averments that after its installation, the refrigerator had a snag in its working and leakage of drain water on its back, which was set right by the OP No.2 by sending one mechanic to the house of the complainant (Para 3) and that during the year 2012, the family of the complainant noticed several cracks in the interior side of white coloured body and door and wall panels as well as the shelves and drawers and the puff behind the internal body comes out of the said inner body - the mechanic from OP No.2 - told that there are hair lined impressions of cracks/honey combing which is a part of designing in the inner plastic body and asked for not to worry (Para 4) as well, the basic grievance of the complainant is the mention in the latter extraction.
5. The averments qua OP No.1 are un controverted as none entered appearance on its behalf and ex parte proceedings were ordered against it.
6. Insofaras OP No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the contesting OP) is concerned, it has resisted the grievance on the plea that the averred defect has occurred after the one year warranty period is over and further that the extended four year warranty is only in respect of the compressor.
7. We are not inclined to agree with the contesting OP. The reasons therefor are as under.
8. The purchase made by the complainant was of a refrigerator made by a Company with international reputation in the business circle. Even if the extended warranty duration was over by the time the averred defect came to appear and get noticed, the contesting OP cannot wriggle out of the liability to explain the appearance of cracks in the inner body of the refrigerator. It is a matter of common observation that such like cracks would not appear even after years and years of user of a refrigerator. It is unnatural to expect that the complainant/and members of his family would have intentionally mishandled the refrigerator. Even otherwise, the contesting respondent cannot wish away the fact that it had not denied the receipt of the mail containing the grievance of the complainant about the above deficiency (Para-8 of the reply by contesting OP).
9. A seller or a manufacturer is duty bound to take steps for the rectification of a defect relatable to their respective fields. The interpretation of the warranty documentation (as also the extended duration thereof) would be relatable only on the point about whether the purchaser making a grievance has to be billed therefor or not. If the defect occurs during the initial or extended warranty period, the purchaser would not be liable to make any payment for the rectification of the defect. However, if the period of protective cover is over, it may be that the purchaser has to pay up. In the current age of consumerism and in the light of prevalence of the Consumer Protection Act as a piece of beneficial/benevolent legislation for the protection of the consumer population, the refrain/refusal on the part of a dealer or a manufacturer to respond to a complaint can safely be nomenclatured as an act of deficiency in service. The contesting OP was, thus, duty bound to respond (in whichever way it wanted) to the mailed complaint of the complainant. It would be purely logical for it to endeavour to wriggle out of accountability just by averring that the complainant ought to have contacted the Customer Care. The plea raised in plainly illogical, particularly in this age of computerization wherein a complaint receipted by one wing can be very easily transferred to the concerned wing. We do not, accordingly, buy the plea hawked on behalf of the contesting OP.
10. While, thus, holding that the complainant had been able to prove a manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and he has also been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 as also the contesting OP, we would direct as under

(a)     The contesting OP shall either replace the refrigerator with a brand new refrigerator OR refund the amount which the complainant had paid as the price thereof.

(b)     The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000  as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant. The apportionment, as between OP No.1 and the contesting OP, would be Rs.5,000 (payable by the former) and Rs.10,000 (payable by the latter).

­(c)      The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000 as the cost of litigation. The liability of the OPs to pay this amount shall be joint and several.

(In case of either eventuality under item (a), the contesting OP shall be entitled to have the old refrigerator from the complainant)      

11. OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

28.07.2015                    ANITA KAPOOR                             DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.  

 

 

                         

                                                          ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                               MEMBER