IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/51/2016.
Date of Filing: 05.04.2016. Date of Final Order: 06.02.2017.
Complainant: Abu Bakkar Ali, Vill. Kushmore, P.O. Gurah, P.S. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad.
Pin 742184.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited, Whirlpool House, Plot No. 40,
Sector -44, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.
2. Branch Manager, Whirlpool of India, 8, Camac Street(11th floor),
Cal-700017.
3. Unique Service Centre, Indraprastha, Berhampore, Murshidabad. Pin 742103.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.
Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 for return back of the cost of refrigerator the sum of Rs.18,500/- as well as Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for fraudulent from the OPs.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased one refrigerator on 05.06.2002 manufactured by Whirlpool. Later the complainant filed a case for the problem arised in the refrigerator or/ and with the help of judgment dt. 12.02.2010 given by the Forum, he got one new refrigeration from the OPs on 01.11.2010. Afterwards, that refrigerator was found some problems and the OP No.3/ the service centre was called for solve the problem or repair the fridge at last 4 times within 22.02.2016. The mechanic of the Op No.3 took Rs.985/- as charges at time of repair and at the last visit stated that the compressor of the machine’s life is finished. The complainant wrote letters to whirlpool House-Gurgoan, Branch Manager, Whirlpool, Kolkata and Unique Service Centre but did not get any reply. So, he came to this Forum for proper redress.
On the other hand the OP Nos. 1 & 2 Whirlpool of India Ltd appeared in this case by filing written version, where they dismissed all the allegations. The OPs 1&2 stated that the complainant received this disputed refrigerator from the OPs on the basis of an order passed by the Ld. Forum on 12.02.2010 in complainant case No. 80/2009 as the Ops provided with total replacement of the refrigerator instead of replace the damaged door with a fresh warranty of one year for entire refrigerator and four years for the compressor only. Afterwards the complainant alleged defects in the said refrigerator before the OP on 08.05.2011, 15.09.2014, 17.02.2016 & 22.02.2016. First two complaints were solved by the OP free of cost and third complaint was attended by the OP charged of Rs.985/- as because the warranty period was over. Last complaint was total damaged of compressor after expiry of the warranty period, so the OP charged for replacement of the compressor. But the complaint was not ready to pay and so he cancelled the service request and came to this Forum. So, the OP stated that the case is liable to be rejected.
Another OP, the OP No.3/Unique Service Centre inspite of receiving notice, did not turn up. So, the case proceeds ex parte against the OP No.3.
The only point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs or not and or whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.
Decision with reasons.
The complainant in order to prove his case submitted some Xerox copies of documents.
Perused the documents in the record, we observed that it is admitted facts that four different dates the complainant complained to the Ops and the OP also visited the complainant’s place and gave the service. The complainant’s complaint is that last two dates was charged by the OP for serving, whereas the OP explained that by that time the warranty period was expired. We scrutinized that the documents also shows that the 3rd call for serving was after warranty period was expired and so the OP charged for replacement of parts. The last call for servicing was problem of non-cooling which was also after the completion of warranty of compressor. So, again the OP charged for the replacement of compressor. On the basis of above incidents and related documents we are in the view of that the OP had no deficiency in service on his part in this peculiar case.
Our minute observation found that the complainant was aware that the warranty period was expired though he want service with free of cost, which is to take extra privilege/or undue advantage. It is found that practically the complaint received this refrigerator from the OP in response of an order was passed by the Ld. Forum under the case No. 80/2009 directed to replace the door of that previous refrigerator, but ultimately the OP replaced the total refrigerator . The complainant first time nearly 6 months later visited service centre for that replaced machine with some problems on 08.5.2011 and OP repaired the said refrigerator. Then the complainant second time visited the service centre on 15.09.2014 i.e nearly 3 years 10 months later with cooling problem, but according to the OP only level adjustment help to solved the problem. Third time he visited to OP on 17.02.2016 i.e. approximately 1 year 5 months later. The service reporting is evidence that the said refrigerator had no acute problem to stop running rather it starts problem after 3 years 10 months normal running. So, the complainant failed to prove and or show a cogent ground of manufacturing defects of the said machine where as the OP submitted 3 copies of judgments, like (a) Balaram Saha Vs. Preet Tractors Pvt. Ltd( 2016 SCC online NCDRC 1257, (b) Tata Motors Vs. Rajesh Tyagi and HIM Motors Showroom [ 192014) CPJ 132(NC)], (c) Suslila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dr. Birendra Narayan Prasad in R. P No. 1652/2006 passed by Hon’ble National Commission (order dated 07.05.2016).
Basic of those three judgments was on expert opinion should be called for in such cases and it is mandatory requirement and the onus of proving that the existing of manufacturing defect. All of these things are evident by the documents in the record. The complainant should realize that the Forum is not a lottery, which will approve illegal demands and will give undue benefits.
So, we are in the clear opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Regarding compensation prayed by the complainant is another item which proved that the complainant has an unrealistic expectation and for huge monetary gain i.e. amount of Rs.2, 50,000/. But whether the complainant is not entitled to reliefs, the question of compensation does not arise in this case.
On the basis of above mention discussions and the basis of documents and material on record, we are in the view that the case is dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
Hence,
Ordered
that the complaint case No. 51/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member President.
