BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 89 of 2017                                                                 

                                                           Date of Institution         :          20.04.2017

                                                          Date of Decision   :           12.1.2018     

Shashi Jain wife of Shri Ajit Jain, resident of # 12, Bank Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                   Versus.

1. Punjab Radio Company, Distributor of Whirlpool Refrigerator, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Owner.

2. Shri Shyam Air Con., Shanidev Mandir Wali Gali, Bhadra Bazar, Sirsa, through its Incharge.

3. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited, Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurugram-122002, Haryana India through its Managing Director.

                                                                                     ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT.

     SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE, MEMBER.        

Present:       Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

           Opposite parties no.1 and 2 exparte.

Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan, proxy counsel for Sh. Narinder Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.3.

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased one refrigerator from opposite party no.1 on 24.4.2016 for a sum

of Rs.32,000/- vide bill No.1764 with six years guarantee. The op no.1 is the authorized dealer and op no.2 is authorized care centre at Sirsa and op no.3 is manufacturing company of Whirlpool refrigerator. It is further averred that since the purchase of said refrigerator, it is not working properly because after few days i.e. in the month of July, 2016 it was noticed that fruits and vegetables get freezed in crisper section. Immediately the husband of complainant made complaint to op no.1 who sent engineer who adjusted temperature setting after which few days it worked but after some time again it started freezing food. Then again complaint was made on toll free number of the company and again it was checked and repaired but after some days it became faulty. Then on complaint, engineer told to install stabilizer which was also purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.2000/- and it was installed but all in vain and fault of refrigerator could not be repaired. It is further averred that again the engineer of company took some part of the refrigerator and replaced it after 25 days but after sometime it became defective. That on 12.4.2017 husband of complainant visited op no.2 and narrated the problem of the refrigerator who prepared job sheet in which it has been clearly mentioned that this refrigerator has been repaired for four times but inspite of it, same could not be repaired. Since then the ops have not cared to repair or replace the said refrigerator and complainant is suffering from serious problem due to non availability of refrigerator in the house and since the date of purchase of above said refrigerator, the complainant could not get fruits of the same. That even then the complainant made complaints to op no.1 and requested him to admit the claim of complainant and to replace the said refrigerator from the company as per his assurances because the refrigerator is still under guarantee, but all in vain and op no.1 has refused to admit his claim and refused to replace the said refrigerator. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, initially opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and sought adjournments for filing written statements but thereafter none appeared on their behalf and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3.                Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. The refrigerator in question purchased by complainant on 24.4.2016 comes within the warranty of one year comprehensive and next five years for compressor only. Whereas the complainant is trying to mislead the Forum by mentioning wrong tenure of the warranty. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non disclosing of true facts. It is further submitted that each and every complaint which was registered with the authorized service center of answering op has been attended properly as per terms and conditions of the warranty. The obligation of op no.3 under the terms of the warranty is to set right the refrigerator by repairing and replacing the defective parts and complainant cannot claim more than what he has agreed at the time of buying the product in question. The op no.3 has never denied after sale service, therefore, there has been no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of op no.3. It is further submitted that complainant has no legitimate ground for replacement/ refund of the refrigerator. It is not the case where the refrigerator in question is having any irreparable manufacturing defects and required replacement. The complainant has not filed documentary evidence or report of an expert from the approved laboratory in support of his allegation in the complaint. It is further submitted that in fact the first call no.HR0516014080 was registered on 31.5.2016 and same was closed by fixing loose connection in the wiring of power supply to the refrigerator. The second call No.HR0916002489 was on 8.9.2016 and this was also properly attended and core board assembly unit was replaced. There was one call HR0417005679 which was properly attended and thermal fuse was replaced under the terms of the warranty. It is further averred that each and every call of the complainant was properly attended. Necessary repairs and replacements of the part were done according to the terms and conditions of the warranty. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and dismissal of complaint is prayed for.

4.                The complainant produced her affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit Ex.R1.

5.                We have heard learned for complainant as well as learned proxy counsel for opposite party no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant in order to prove her case has furnished her affidavit Ex.C1 wherein she has reiterated all the facts mentioned in her complaint. She has also produced copy of bill dated 24.4.2016 as Ex.C2 and copy of job sheet dated 12.4.2017 as Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.3 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Mujeeb Ur Rehman, Branch Service Manager as Ex.R1. It is proved fact on record that complainant had purchased a refrigerator bearing Sr. No.161306083 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.32,000/- vide bill No.1764 as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C2. After sometime, refrigerator of the complainant was not working properly as a result of which she had been knocking the doors of the service centre of the company time and again for redressal of her grievance and to make the refrigerator defect free but ops had been repairing the refrigerator by replacing certain parts time to time and this fact also finds mention in the written statement of op no.3. It is clearly mentioned in the written statement of op no.3 that core board assembly unit and thermal fuse were replaced. Further more, it is evident from job card dated 12.4.2017 that Balbir Soni engineer of the company mentioned in this job card that refrigerator was repaired four times but could not be defect free. So, it is proved on record that refrigerator of the complainant is not working properly despite the best efforts of repairing made by the service centre of the company for four times and it is also proved fact that refrigerator of the complainant was within warranty period. As such, it is the legal obligation of the opposite parties to give replacement of the refrigerator in question with same make and model.

7.                In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator in question of the complainant with a new one of same make and model or otherwise to refund the price of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.32,000/- to the complainant. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they will be liable to refund the amount of Rs.32,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.    

Announced in open Forum.     Member                              President,

Dated: 12.01.2018.                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                    Redressal Forum, Sirsa.