The complainant has filed the present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant purchased a whirlpool refrigerator Model “12125 330 ELT Protton” SI No. INE 112401431 for Rs.27,500/- vide bill No.09 Serial No.11-12/442 from M/s Computer Electronics (O.P-1) on 08.07.2011. It is alleged that the complainant took the extended service warranty from O.P-2 on persuasion of O.P-1 upon paying Rs.3132/- for the period from 30.06.2013 to 29.06.2014. It is also alleged that the said refrigerator abruptly stopped cooling on 4.07.2013 and the matter was reported immediately to the customer care of whirlpool via service request No.DL0713003093. It is alleged that the problem was identified as gas leakage plus water inside the compressor and compressor sucked the water because the gas leakage point was in a pipe section which remains dipped inside the water. Because of which it called for the replacement of the compressor and moisture cleaning from capillary in addition to the gas filling. It is alleged that this proves the poor design quality from maintenance perspective that where the problem was only gas leakage (small common issue), it called for the replacement of compressor and capillary cleaning. It is also alleged that refrigerator had not worked normally and had been giving working problems every now and then the complainant had made calls on telephone of the customer care. It is also alleged that the OP No.2 regularly visited the premises for inspection and repairs and tried to sort out the problem of the refrigerator but no permanent solution was meted out. It is also alleged that the said refrigerator had not been working properly and so many defects had developed like low cooling resulting in gas leakage and small wire cut. It is alleged that the O.Ps have sold the above said defective refrigerator to the complainant hence is a deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. On these facts complainant prays that O.Ps be directed to refund the price of refrigerator or replace the defective refrigerator and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P-2 appeared and filed their respective written statements. In its written statement, OP No.2 has not disputed that complainant has purchased the refrigerator in question. However, case of OP-2 is that the first time the complainant has lodged the complaint with OP and the complaint of the complainant was promptly attended and services was given to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant has used the alleged refrigerator for the complete stretch of comprehensive warranty and rest of the warranty is on the compressor of the refrigerator in question. It is also alleged that complainant being fully aware intentionally not placed on record the warranty card of the refrigerator in question and as far as AMC is concerned and the rat bitten issue is not covered under AMC. It is alleged that the complainant with malafide intention intentionally not allowing the engineers of the answering O.P to repair the refrigerator as the same is very much repairable. It is also alleged that the rodent bite can make any machine stop working and same is clear negligence and lack of proper maintenance of refrigerator on part of the complainant. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complainant. On the other hand O.P-2 has filed affidavit of Shri Vinay Kumar. Parties have also filed their written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of complainant.
5. Complainant has submitted that he had purchased the refrigerator for Rs.27,500/- from the O.P-1 on 08.07.2011 with warranty for compressor for 5 years and for whole of the fridge for 1 year. He has further argued that an extend warranty was given from 30.06.2013 to 29.06.2014 for which he had paid additional amount of Rs.3132/-. It is submitted that the fridge did not work properly of which he had made a complaint to the O.Ps, therefore, the O.Ps be directed either to refund the price of the fridge or to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one.
6. The case of the O.P-2 is that the refrigerator used by the complainant for complete stretch of comprehensive warranty and rest of the warranty is on the compressor of the refrigerator in question. At the same time it is also the case of the O.Ps that present is the case of rodent bite for which any machine can stop working. It is also the case of the O.P-2 that the complainant intentionally did not allowed its engineers to repair the refrigerator which is repairable. It is admitted case that the fridge in question was purchased in the July, 2011. It is not disputed that extended warranty against payment of amount Rs.3132/- was given by O.Ps for the period from 30.06.2013 to 29.06.2014. When the case of the O.P is that the complainant did not allowed the engineers of the O.P to repair of the fridge, it is clear that O.P-2 is ready to repair the refrigerator.
7. The present complaint was filed in the year 2014 complainant has used the fridge for from 2011 to 2014. In these circumstances it will be improper to order replacement of the fridge by a new one. However interest of justice will be met if the complaint of the consumer should be addressed which the O.P-2 is ready to address. In these circumstances we direct to O.P-1 and O.P-2 jointly and severally to repair the fridge of the complainant at his home at their own expenses within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own cost. Complaint is, therefore, disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties by Registered post and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
Announced this 20th day of December, 2014.
(BABU LAL) (D.R. TAMTA)
President Member
