Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/961/2016

Mukesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sudhir Kr. Pandey

05 Jun 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/961/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	18/10/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	05/06/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Mukesh Kumar S/o Kishori Lal, H.No.534/2, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant.

Versus

 

1.   M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd., through its Manager, Head Office, Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana.

 

2.   M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd., through its Manager, Plot No.78, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh-160002.

 

3.   Janta Electronics, through its Owner, SCO 36-37, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR        PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. S.K. SARDANA        MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sudhir Kr. Pandey, Advocate.
For OP Nos.1 and 2	:	Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

          Briefly the facts giving rise to the present Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased one Frost Free (Double Door) Refrigerator from Opposite Party No.3 on 02.11.2013, carrying warranty of 10 years, for a sum of Rs.26,502/- vide bill Annexure   C-1. It has been alleged that the Compressor of the said Refrigerator stopped working on 25.11.2014 and 23.07.2015, when the Service Engineer came and replaced the said Compressor and charged Rs.2550/- and Rs.4100/- respectively. Notwithstanding this, when on 21.07.2016 again the same problem cropped up, the Complainant requested for replacement of the Refrigerator. However, when nothing positive could come out, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 30.09.2016 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.          Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 resisted the complaint by filing their written reply, inter alia, pleading that the first Complaint was lodged by the Complainant on 02.12.2014, when the compressor was in warranty. The Service Engineer visited the Complainant and replaced the Compressor and filled the gas. The Complainant was charged for the filling of gas and not for the Compressor. The Refrigerator worked for 08 months and again the Compressor was changed on 23.07.2015. As the Compressor needed replacement within 08 months of installation, the Engineer of the answering Opposite Parties recommended usage of Stabilizer to the Complainant. It has been asserted that the last Complaint could not be redressed as the Complainant has not allowed inspection of the product and rather demanded replacement. The Complainant was accordingly informed that the replacement can be done upon payment of amount of new Refrigerator, reduced with the depreciation amount of the older Refrigerator. The said offer of replacement has been refused by the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.          The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.

7.          It is evident from Annexure C-1, the copy of the retail invoice, that the Complainant purchased one Whirlpool Frost Free (Double Door) Refrigerator from Opposite Party No.3, on 02.11.2013, with warranty of 10 years. Annexures C-3 dated 03.12.2014 and C-4 dated 23.07.2015 are the two job-sheets, according to which the Refrigerator, in question, was repaired twice, for which the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.2550/- and Rs.4100/- respectively. Annexure C-5 is an e-mail dated 22.07.2016 from the Complainant to the Opposite Parties, with a request to redress his grievance towards the defective product, but nothing was done. Eventually, the Complainant was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 30.09.2016, which is annexed at Pg. No. 35 of the paper book, with a request to replace the defective piece of the Refrigerator.

 

8.          The stand taken by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is that as and when the defect was reported, the same was rectified by their Service Engineers. The Complainant was only charged for the filling of the gas and not for the Compressor. It has been contended that the last Complaint of the Complainant could not be redressed as he himself did not allow the Service Engineers of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to inspect the product in question and rather demanded replacement of the same.   

 

9.          The Opposite Party No.3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.3 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.3 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted. Even otherwise also, the Opposite Party No.3 cannot escape its liability, in as much as, it (Opposite Party No.3) is also equally liable as the other Opposite Parties being the authorized retailer of the Opposite Parties No.1 (manufacturer).

 

10.        It is important to note here that during the proceedings of the present Complaint, on 24.05.2017, both the Parties agreed, that the Service Engineer of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall visit the premises of the Complainant and inspect the Refrigerator in question and on next date of hearing the Inspection Report shall be submitted before this Forum. On 31.05.2017, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant submitted the Service Report given by the Service Engineers of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 26.05.2017. A perusal of the said Service Report reveals that again the Compressor and gas leakage issues have been reported. In these set of circumstances, we are of the concerted opinion that since despite making various efforts, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 could not rectify the defects with regard to the Compressor or the gas leakage of the Refrigerator in question, therefore, it would be appropriate to pass an order for the refund of the product in question, in order to meet the ends of justice. We are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties arbitrarily ignored the justified requests of the Complainant for the replacement of the Refrigerator. The act of the Opposite Parties for not providing the proper services and extracting money from the Complainant towards the repair of the Refrigerator by extending false assurances, proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.

 

11.        In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties. The same is allowed qua them. We direct the Opposite Parties as under:- 

(i)  To refund Rs.26,502/- being the invoice price of the refrigerator in question to the Complainant;

(ii) To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

(iii) To also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

12.        This order be complied with by Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.

13.        The Complainant shall return the defective Whirlpool Frost Free (Double Door) Refrigerator in question to the Opposite Parties after the compliance of the order.

 

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

Announced

05^th June, 2017                                                    Sd/-     

(SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(S.K. SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER