DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 484/2014
D.No._________ Dated: __________
In the matter of:
MS. SUNITA MEDIRATTA W/o Dr. R.K. MEDIRATTA,
R/o A-3/109,SECTOR-3, ROHINI,
OPP. JAIPUR GOLDEN HOSPITAL,
DELHI-110085. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. SACHDEVA ELECTROVISION,
(THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER/INCHARGE),
3, VAISHALI, PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.
2. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER/INCHARGE),
REGD. OFFICE: A-4, MIDC, RANJAN GAON,
TALUKA SHIROR, DISTT. PUNE-419204,
MAHARASTRA
ZONAL OFFICE: WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER/INCHARGE),
KHASRA No-47/2 & 32/2,
OPP. LUTHRA FARMA, PALLA ROAD,
OUTER DISTT., DELHI-110036
CONSUMER SERVICE H.O.: WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER/INCHARGE),
CONSUMER SERVICE H.O.-28,
NIT FARIDABAD, HARYANA. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM : SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 23.04.2014
Date of decision: 02.02.2017
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator U/Ex. Model 450 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.31,400/- vide invoice dated 04.10.2009 and the payment was made vide cheque no-193798 dated 04.10.2009 for Rs.31,400/-. OP-1 is the distributor of OP-2, the manufacturer of the refrigerator. The refrigerator functioned normally for 11 months from the date of purchase and thereafter the refrigerator started giving trouble. The water started dribbling from the freezer. The problem was reported to Consumer Service Centre of OP-2 and despite best possible efforts made by the Engineers/Technicians of OP-2, the defect in the refrigerator could not be rectified. After consistent efforts, the defective refrigerator was replaced with a new one on 14.01.2013 and the complainant was forced to pay a further sum of Rs.18,230/-. The new/replaced refrigerator provided by OP-2 in place of old one is of higher model i.e. Neo IC 465 ACGB4 Graphite (450L). The complainant has been charged depreciation @ 20% per year amounting to Rs.19,715/- for replacement of old refrigerator in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The replaced refrigerator stopped working completely and the complaints were attended by the Engineers/Technicians of OP and the compressor of the refrigerator was changed and gas was refilled therein. The replaced refrigerator started giving crackling like sounds. The complainant was again attended by the technicians but the defects could not be rectified and the technicians said the crackling sound was on account of excess filling of gas therein and on account of some manufacturing defect therein. Several written complaints dated 30.08.2013, 23.09.2013, 28.09.2013 and 16.11.2013 were sent to the OP besides personal visits and telephonic conversations from time to time. On 22.12.2013, the husband of the complainant had telephonic conversation with Mr. Vikram at telephone no-09212551408 of OP-2 and it was assured that OP-2 would refund the entire cost of the refrigerator but till date nothing has been paid to the complainant by the OP. A SMS dated 04.02.2014 was also sent but of no result. The complainant has alleged that for the Redressal of the complaint the complainant has approached the Consumer Forum.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for refund of an amount of Rs.47,900/- being the cost of replaced refrigerator and has also sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and has also sought litigation charges of Rs.20,000/-.
3. Earlier OP-2 has been contesting the case and filed the written statement wherein OP-2 submitted that the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed as the OP never denied to provide its after sale service as assured under the terms of warranty. The OP-2 further submitted that the warranty expired on 06.10.2010 and as a gesture of goodwill the refrigerator was replaced on 14.01.2013 after charging depreciation and thereafter the OP did not receive any complaint from the complainant of any defect and accordingly submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and to be dismissed.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of the OP and submitted that due to manufacturing defect in the refrigerators, the engineers who attended the original refrigerator and replaced refrigerator have hopelessly failed to remove the defects from the refrigerators.
5. In order to prove her case the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice/bill dated 04.10.2009 for purchase of refrigerator (450DX Carbon) for Rs.31,400/-, copies of service requests dated 11.10.2009, 17.08.2012, 30.08.2012, 19.09.2012, copy of changed refrigerator invoice of Rs.18,230/-, copy of replacement advice dated 14.01.2013, copies of complaints dated 30.08.2013, 23.09.2013, 28.09.2013 & 16.11.2013 alongwith copies of postal receipts and A.D. card.
6. However, when the case was fixed for OP evidence none for OP-2 appeared and it seems that OP-2 does not want to contest the case of the complainant.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant as well as the defence taken by the OP-2 in the written statement. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. In the reply the OP-2 has taken a defence that as a goodwill gesture refrigerator was replaced on 14.01.2013 with a new refrigerator which is a higher model. It is the admitted case of OP-2 that after deducting depreciation amount, an amount of Rs.18,230/- has been charged from the complainant. The OP-2 has further taken a defence that after 14.01.2013, no complaint of any defect in the replaced refrigerator from the complainant has been received. Whereas the complainant has placed on record copies of various written letters/complaints alongwith postal receipts and A.D. card. It shows that the OP-2 has taken a false defence and after receiving the various complaints/letters from the husband of complainant, the OP-2 has failed to look into the complaints and resolve the defect in the replaced refrigerator.
8. Accordingly the OP-2 being the manufacturer of the refrigerator is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, the OP-2 is directed as under:
- To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.47,900/- as the price of the refrigerator on return of replaced refrigerator by the complainant.
- To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
- To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards litigation cost.
10. The above amount shall be paid by the OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 2nd February, 2017.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT
