- Mrs. Devi Sil,
118B/1/A, Rajib Gandhi Road,
P.O. Konnagar, P.S. Uttarpara,
Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712235. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd.
8, Camac Street,
Shantiniketal Building,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17.
- The Managing Director,
M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd.
Whirlpool House, Plot No.40,
Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.
- The Branch Manager,
M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd.
8, Camac Street,
Shantiniketal Building,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17.
- The Proprietor
Speed Service,
48, G.T. Road (West),
P.O. Konnagar, P.S. Uttarpara,
Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712235.
- The Proprietor
M/s New Dutta Brothers,
24, Janata Sarani,
P.O. Hindmotor, P.S. Uttarpara,
Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712235. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 19 Dated 10/12/2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that on 1.8.11 complainant purchased one Whirlpool Water Purifier (model RODLX) with serial no.KRA 105031481 for a total consideration of Rs.13,600/- from o.p. no.5 who is authorized dealer of products of o.p. no.1. After purchasing the said machine the agent of o.p. no.4 installed the said product on 2.8.11 at complainant’s residence. After installation complainant observed that water has not been flown properly from the said machine and with the passage of time the flow of water has been decreased. Complainant registered one complaint with the Customer Care Service of o.p. no.1 on 7.11.11. Accordingly, the agent of o.p. no.4 visited the residence of complainant to inspect the problem. After inspection the service agent told that thereafter the machine would run properly, but the same problem continued. Again complainant lodged another complainant with Customer Care of o.p. no.1 and on 8.11.11 the agent of o.p. no.4 gave the service for the machine of the complainant. Thereafter again the problem has been started with the said machine and on 3.12.11 again the agent of o.p. no.4 visited the residence of complainant and inspected the problem and gave the service to that effect. Complainant had to lodge another complaint again and on 12.12.11 the agent of o.p. no.4 visited the residence of complainant and found the problem with plus sediment carbon filter and gave the note that filters to be changed and complainant had to purchase the filters. When complainant told that the machine was still under warranty then o.p.no.4 told that they could not do anything until and unless complainant would purchase the filters. Then the complainant contacted with o.p. no.5 and they refused to entertain the grievance of complainant. Again complainant lodged another complaint with the service centre and as usual on 19.12.11 o.p. no.4 visited the complainant’s residence and found that water has not been flown and opined that plus sediments are to be changed. He also told the complainant to purchase the plus sediments since o.p. no.1 would not provide the same. On 24.2.12 complainant sent a legal notice to o.ps. to replace the defective machine within 15 days from the receipt of the said legal notice, but o.ps. did not take any step to solve the problem of complainant. Again complainant sent a legal notice on 11.4.12, but o.ps. did not pay any heed. Hence, the application praying for replacement the said machine along with compensation and cost.
O.p. nos.1 to 3 appeared in this case by filing w/v and o.p. nos.4 and 5 did not contest the case by filing w/v in spite of receipt of notices and as such, matter was heard ex parte against o.p. nos.4 and 5.
In their w/v o.p. nos.1 to 3 denied all the material allegations interalia stated that there is no specific cause of action in the instant case and no specific allegation has been made out by complainant against the o.ps. O.p. no.1 is the manufacturer and o.p. nos.2 and 3 are working for gain at the office of o.p. no.1. When the machine in question was installed on the work sheet it was written “M/C is O.K.” Specifically when the said machine as alleged that it was not working the same was duly attended by o.p. Complainant instead of giving chance to o.ps. to make the machine defect free he has made the instant complaint to harass the o.ps. When the complaint was lodged by complainant the remarks on the work sheet always “O.K.” and that was duly signed by complainant. Always the Customer Care Cell of o.ps. has accepted the complaint lodged by complainant and so, there is no reason that the customer care cell had not accepted the complainant made by him. O.p. nos.1 to 3 also stated in their w/.v that they are still ready to repair the alleged defective machine and will provide fresh warranty on the said machine and if found, the machine is irreparable then the same will be replaced along with fresh warranty. They have also stated that the prayer for cost and compensation be dismissed in limini with cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted that on 1.8.11 complainant purchased one Whirlpool Water Purifier (model RODLX) with serial no.KRA 105031481 for a total consideration of Rs.13,600/- from o.p. no.5 who is authorized dealer of products of o.p. no.1. After purchasing the said machine the agent of o.p. no.4 installed the said product on 2.8.11 at complainant’s residence. After installation complainant observed that water has not been flown properly from the said machine and with the passage of time the flow of water decreased. On perusal of the record we have observed that complainant made several complaints to the Customer Care Service of o.p. no.1 alleging the defects in the machine in question. It is true that o.p. no.4 visited the residence of complainant, inspected the machine in question and gave the service, but on regular small interval complainant had to lodge complaint before o.p. no.4. It is astonishing that o.p. no.4 requested the complainant to purchase the plus sediment carbon filter when the machine was purchased only three months prior to that date i.e. the machine was under warranty period. In the w/v o.p. nos.1 to 3 have submitted that they are ready to repair the alleged defective machine with fresh warranty or replace the same, if found irreparable. We find that complainant faced problems from the very date of the purchase of the said machine. Hence, we find that the machine has not been working properly and as such, complainant had to face the problem at regular small interval. So, we find deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. nos.1 to 3 and dismissed ex parte without cost against o.p. nos. 4 and 5. O.p. nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace the old machine in question with a new one and install the same in the complainant’s residence within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and are also directed to give fresh warranty card for the new installed machine and complainant is directed to return the old machine in question at the time of installation of new machine and o.p. nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
