Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/294/2020

Mrs. Sudesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Dec 2021

ORDER

 

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

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	294 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	14.07.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	23.12.2021

 

 

 

 

Smt.Sudesh Sharma w/o Sh.Rajeshwar Lal Sharma, aged 76 years, Resident of H.No.623, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd., Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurugram 122002 (Haryana)

     ….. Opposite Party 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                    MEMBER               

 

 

For Complainant :  Complainant in person

For OP (s)        :  Sh.Alok Bhatara, Advocate

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant, a senior citizen of 76 years, purchased one Whirlpool Refrigerator of OP Company on 1.3.2020 for an amount of Rs.10,500/- from dealer of OP Company (JD Computers & Electronics, Phase-2, Mohali).  It is stated that soon after the purchase, the refrigerator started giving problem, as it has not been defrosting, causing the tray to jam and creating a sheet of Ice all over.  As a result thereof, the complainant was unable to keep her injections in the try and she had to manually defrost the refrigerator time & again.  It is also stated that due to said problem in the refrigerator, the complainant was also unable to keep vegetables and milk in it.  It is submitted that on reporting the said problem to the OP Company, their Engineer visited & checked the refrigerator and told the refrigerator should have auto defrost and it could be defective, so assured to get it replaced.  It is pleaded that the complainant kept on calling the OP Company and their Engineer as well as Officials on phone, but instead of rectifying the defect or replacing the defective refrigerator, the OP kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other, causing immense harassment to the complainant. It is also pleaded that left with no alternative, the complainant preferred the present complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP Company.

 

2]       The OP has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant registered on concern/complaint on 15.6.2020 and on same day Service Engineer visited and found the refrigerator working fine.  It is stated that the Service Engineer found that complainant was putting boiled milk and hot cooked food which produce moisture inside the refrigerator, she was advised not to do so but did not pay any attention to this.  It is stated that no replacement offer of refrigerator was ever made, as alleged.  It is also stated that the case of the complainant is a concocted story to exert illegitimate money from OP. Denying other allegations, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, Ld.Counsel for the OP and have gone through entire record.

6]       From the documents & evidence on record, it is proved that Refrigerator in question purchased on 1.3.2020 by the complainant, a senior citizen lady of 76 years old, started giving problem from the very beginning, which admittedly was reported to OP Company on 15.6.2020.  The problem had not been rectified by the OP Company despite many requests of complainant made through emails. It is expected from a brand new product of OP like Company that it should function without any trouble at least for some years, but in the present case the product/appliance started giving problem within few months of its purchase.

7]        The company has a legal obligation to sale defective-free product or to replace the same with new one in case of defect within initial years of its purchase. We are of the opinion that the loss and harassment so caused to the complainant was due to the supply of defective appliance, therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of OP is clearly established, so the complainant deserves to be compensated.   

8]       In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party.  Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed with direction to OP Company to replace the appliance in question with brand new one of the same model & configuration or in case the complainant opts for higher model, then she shall pay the difference amount, otherwise not.  The OP Company is also directed to pay a compository amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing immense harassment & mental agony due to its deficient services as well as litigation expenses.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced                                                             

23^rd Dec., 2021                                                         sd/-

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER

Om