District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.749/2023.
Date of Institution:20.11.2023.
Date of Order:30.05.2024.
Kunal Nagpal S/o Shri Anil Nagpal r/o B-208, Sector-11D, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Whirlpool of India Limited, C..o Adarsh Marketing, 44 KM Miles Stone, Mathura Road, Village Softa, Palwal through its Authorized Officer/Manager.
2. M/s. Whirlpool of India Limited, Plot No. 28, Sector-22, Industrial Area, Mujessar, Faridabad through its Authorized Officer/Manager.
3. Unique Service, Whirlpool Authorised Service Centre, Shop NO.2, Badkhal Pali road, Near R.K. More Faridabad through its Authorized Officer/Manager.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Sachinder Bhati, counsel for the complainant.
Sh, Rakesh Jaiswal, counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased and installed the Whirlpool Refrigerator Model NO. PRO 465 RLT 48 ALPHA Steel form opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 on 23.06.2016 against invoice NO. 1202298871 dated 23.06.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.44,200/- in at the time of purchase of the Whirlpool Refrigerator for installation the same in the residential premises of the complainant. At the time of purchase of said refrigerator, the opposite parties stated that there was a warrantee of the said refrigerator for the period of 10 years and further, after installing the said refrigerator was in working for last six years and in the month of April, 2023, the refrigerator started giving troubles/problem and working properly and not cooling and after some days it was completely stopped and in this regard the complainant lodged the complaint various times in the complaint centre to the opposite party No.3 stated that the refrigerator not been working properly. The complainant lodged the complaint telephonically to the Service centre i.e. M/s. Unique Service, Badkhal Pali Road, Faridabad and the representative of the Centre visited the residence of complainant on 20.04.2023 and after complete checking of the refrigerator he stated that one part in the refrigerator required to be changed and without this part the said refrigerator was completely dumped and for this the representative charged Rs.650/- as visiting charges from complainant and issued the receipt No. 2457 dated 20.04.2023 of his service centre and further told to give some time to arrange the said faulty part form the Whirlpool Company. After passing one month of the visit of opposite party No.3 it was informed that unfortunately the specific product UTO-7 year part was currently not in stock and the opposite party apologizes for any convenience for this and this might cause and suggested with an alternative option that by opposite party No.2 to change the
refrigerator with new model which were available and relates to the same model of the complainant refrigerator and inspite of this there were no other solution was made out by the opposite parties to repair the refrigerator and/or to change the product from old to new one till date. The complainant sent the various mails and communication with the opposite parties to replace the said refrigerator to new one but the opposite parties had not taken any heed to resolve the issue of the complainant and dilly dialing the matter one pretext or the other.The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) Refund an amount of Rs.44,200/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization to the complainant; and
b) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted the request of the complainant for damages was not proper and justified. The complainant had no legitimate ground for damages as prayed. It was not the case of the complainant where the refrigerator was having any irreparable or manufacturing defect and OPS had willfully deficient in service or indulge in unfair trade practice but merely asking for refund and compensation alongwith other charges after enjoying the product for more than 7 years had shown the intention of the complainant. The complainant had not filed any documentary evidence or report of an expert from the approved laboratory in his support of his allegation in the complaint regarding cause of defect in the refrigerator. In the absence of the authentic report the allegation of the
complainant was baseless. The allegation of the complainant in complaint clearly smelled that the present complaint had been filed without any cause of action. The complainant had filed this premature complaint with the mala fide intention to extract money from the opposite parties by dragging them into unwanted litigation on the basis of the false allegation. The answering opposite party was still ready to repair the refrigerator under the terms of warranty as well with other model as per deprecation policy of the answering opposite party which had been duly explained to the complainant. The complainant had not come to the court with good intentions and clean hands . The complainant had not disclosed the true facts to the honorable court. The complainant made a false and wrong submission before the honorable court regarding period of the warranty to the refrigerator as Ten complete years comprehensively but on the contrary warranty was of one year as comprehensive plus additional nine for compressor only. By not disclosing true facts to this honorable forum by complainant for his own vested interest. Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Whirlpool of India & Others with the prayer to: a) Refund an amount of Rs.44,200/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization to the complainant; and b) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
Shri Sachinder Bhatia, counsel for the complainant has suffered a statement that the complaint alongwith the documents already filed by him be read as evidence of the complainant. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of the complainant has been closed. The complainant led in his evidence, invoice,, payment receipt, emails dated 26.10.2023, 13.6.2023,, 07.06.2023, 26.05.2013 22.05.2023,20.05.2023 12.05.2023.
Shri Rakesh Jaiswal, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 have suffered a statement that written statement already filed by him be read as evidence on behalf of opposite parties and closed the same. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 have been closed.
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased an Whirlpool refrigerator Model No. PRO 465 RLT 48 ALPHA Steel from opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.44,200/- (including taxes) vide invoice dated 23.06.2016. In the month of April 2023, the refrigerator started giving troubles/problem and not working properly and not cooling and after some days it was completely stopped. As per email dated 07.06.2023 written by Sahil Swami, Care Manager- Service Operations support to Mr Nagpal stating that “our service team is exploring alternative options to ensure that your refrigerator can be repaired or replaced as per your refrigerator can be repaired or replaced as per your satisfaction.” Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties personally as well as on emails dated 26.10.2023, 13.6.2023,, 07.06.2023, 26.05.2013 22.05.2023,20.05.2023 12.05.2023. ipso facto go to prove that the refrigeration in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties. During the course of arguments, Shri Rakesh Jaiswal, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 has suffered a statement that “I am ready to replace the refrigerator in case the complainant ready to pay depreciation amount of the refrigerator. In that case company will replace the same to the complainant with old one.” and during the correspondence opposite party has also sent an email on 30.06.2023 stating that “we recommend considering our customer bailout policy, which offers the following alternative product:
Product: New Model DP 21692 IF INV CNV 480 ALPHA STEEL (2S)-Z
Price: INR 63,000
Depreciation 75%
Discounted price: INR33,150
7. After going through the statement suffered by the counsel for the opposite party as well as email sent by the opposite party, as per the email opposite party wants to supply the articles on 75% deduction but after agitation of the complainant’s counsel, the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant is not interested to keep the refrigerator because he has also bought the refrigerator earlier and he also requested for the refund. In the interest of justice, opposite party is directed to refund the 60% of the invoice amount dated 23.06.2016. There are no order as to costs. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of this order. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 30.05.2024 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
