Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.-80/2020
Jyotsna r/o 11255/2, Gali No. 3, Doriwalan,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ...Complainant
Versus
OP1: The Proprietor, Sai Trader,
Shop No. B-4 Prehlad Market, Karol Bagh
New Delhi-110005
OP2: Whirlpool India Ltd.
Plot No. 40, Whirlpool House,
Sector-44, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 ...Opposite Parties
Date of filing: 26.10.2020
Date of Order: 10.07.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Vyas Muni Rai
ORDER
1.1. This complaint has been filed by Ms. Jyotsna (in short complainant) against the proprietor, Sai Trader (in short OP1) and Whirlpool India Ltd. (in short OP2) under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1.2. Complainant purchased a whirlpool refrigerator from OP1 vide invoice no. 9580 on 04.10.2016 for the total amount of Rs. 20,500.76p (including VAT) through finance by Capital First Bank and invoice was issued to the complainant by proprietor of the OP1.
1.3. Delivery of refrigerator was made but after one month it was noticed that there was a leakage of water from the back side of the refrigerator; same was brought to the notice of OP2 who informed the complainant that Impulz Home Care is the authorized service centre at Todapur, New Delhi; OP2 sent one person, namely, Happy, a technician/ engineer at the house of complainant and after inspection, technician noticed that the leakage is from the back side pipe of the refrigerator which drains water; the said technician had tied a plastic rope in order to stop water leakage outside of the refrigerator towards back side of the wall (Annexure-A of the complaint).
1.4. After some time, the complainant noticed that water leakage of water was not stopped from the backside of the wall; rather water was diverted to the other part of the refrigerator and on 10.10.2019 complainant noticed that bottom of backside of the body was rusted and water leakage was still there which penetrated at the bottom of the refrigerator; complainant had called the technician from OP2 and they sent a person/ technician from the authorized service centre of OP2 on the same date; after inspection technician/ engineer of OP2 found that centre and bottom portion of refrigerator got rusted.
1.5. Thereafter, technician prepared a report of service vide book no. 5421 dated 10.10.2019 and he charged Rs. 350/- for the service rendered and also handed over report to the complainant on 10.10.2019 (Annexure-B of the complaint).
1.6. On 02.04.2020, the refrigerator suddenly stopped working and complainant called the technician of the service centre of OP2; technician attended the complaint at the end of May and after checking the refrigerator asked the complainant to pay Rs. 5,000/- for the compressor.
1.7. Whereas the compressor was already under warranty for 10 years, so, complainant refused to pay and it is a defective product, which has already been brought to the notice of the company, so, it is for the company/ OP2 to get the same repaired. The refusal to pay Rs. 5,000/- for the compressor was on the ground of the lockdown situation and being within warranty period.
1.8. Complainant had contacted the representative of OP2 on telephone and was asked that the refrigerator shall be repaired only on payment; thereafter, complainant had requested OP2 for the refund of price of Rs. 20,500/- since the refrigerator sold to her has manufacturing defect; but no action was taken by OP2. The complainant managed her own technician, who inspected the product and said that it will cost Rs. 2,000/- for repair of the compressor but the rusted portion of its body cannot be repaired, and it will lost life by the lapse of time.
1.9. Complainant suffered problem during lockdown period as the refrigerator stopped working and complainant was forced to purchase another fridge in May 2020 as it was difficult for her to protect and manage the perishable products.
1.10. Complainant has prayed for direction to OP2 for refund of Rs. 20,500/- with penal interest and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as penalty for deficiency in service and causing mental agony.
2.1. OP2 has filed the reply under signature of Rupesh Kaushik authorized signatory; complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands, relief claimed by the complainant is barred by limitation; refrigerator has allegedly been purchased on 04.10.2016; the warranty of the refrigerator has already expired on 03.10.2017 and limitation to invoke the warranty and to claim the relief as prayed, have also expired on 03.10.2018, after the expiry of one year warranty.
2.2. OP2 provides warranty only on compressor for further period of 4 years (the warranty period for the compressor is not 10 years as claimed by the complainant; as no document has been filed in this support along with complaint); OP2, at no point of time has denied to provide its after sale service as assured under the terms of the warranty; the complainant lodged his first complaint on 10.10.2019 vide complainant no. 1010009997 and technician from the authorized service centre of OP2 inspected the refrigerator on same date; and found that the body of refrigerator is rusted due to water leakage and charged Rs. 350/- as visit charges.
2.3. The engineer of authorized service centre of OP2 had given an estimate of Rs. 7125/- which was informed to complainant over phone but complainant was not willing to pay the repairing charges and preferred to file the present false complaint just to pressurize to OP2 to meet her illegal demands.
2.4. Complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; refrigerator was purchased on 04.10.2016 and no complaint of any nature was lodged with OP2 within warranty period, the first complaint was lodged on 10.10.2019 which was attended by the engineer of OP2. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of OP2. The complainant already used the refrigerator for more than 3 years, therefore, question of refund does not arise. Present complaint is the abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
2.5. As per proceedings dated 06.01.2021, OP1 was served on 11.12.2020 but did not appear nor filed any reply, affidavit and written arguments etc.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder of the reply of OP2 under her own signature. It is submitted that the OP2 has pleaded different warranty period without furnishing any document of warranty, however, complainant has produced the original copy of the warranty as furnished to her at the time of sale of the product. In the warranty document period of warranty has been recorded as pleaded by the complainant in her complaint, therefore, the OP2 is guilty of giving false statement and his defence in its reply may be struck off as per law.
4.1. Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence under her signature which is the narration of the facts of the complaint.
4.2. OP2 has also filed affidavit under the signature of Sh. Neeraj Mehta, Senior Manager (legal) and the same is on the facts and features of its reply; however, no authorization in favour of Sh. Neeraj Mehta has been filed by OP2.
5. Complainant has filed written argument under her signature which is the narration and repetition of complaint and documents therewith. OP2 has filed its written arguments through Advocate Sh. Satyabir Sharma, which is repetition of the contents of the reply.
6.1. Oral submissions were also made by the complainant and Mr. Satyaveer Sharma, Advocate on behalf of OP2 on 21.3.2023.
6.2. We have carefully perused the case, documents and rival contentions of the parties. The admitted facts are that complainant purchased the whirlpool refrigerator from OP1, which was manufactured by OP2, the said refrigerator developed technical snag after one month from date of purchase i.e. 04.10.2016; the refrigerator was purchased by the complainant for Rs. 20,500/- (including 12.5% VAT) vide book no. 192, Sr. no. 9580 (voucher is at Annexure ‘A’ with the complaint); the defects developed was in the nature of leakage of water from the backside of refrigerator and same was brought to the notice of OP2; technician/ engineer attended the complaint found leakage of water from backside of the product, technician had tied a plastic rope in order to stop the water leakage.
6.3. Thereafter, after lapse of time complainant noticed that leakage of water was not stopped from the backside of the wall of refrigerator; but it was diverted to the other part of refrigerator and on 10.10.2019 complainant noticed that backside and bottom of the product got rusted; water leakage was still continuing; on complaint, technician, namely, Happy from Impulz Home Care Services of OP2 inspected the refrigerator and found the defects of leakage and rusting confirmed; he charged Rs. 350/- for service; and service report dated 10.10.2019 vide service book no. 5421 was handed over to complainant (service report is Annexure-2 with paper-book). On 02.04.2020, refrigerator suddenly stopped working which was brought to the notice of service centre of OP2; technician attended and asked to pay Rs. 5,000/- for replacing compressor; but complainant refused to pay as the refrigerator was within warranty period; having no workable option, requested for refund of the purchase money which was denied by OP2.
6.4. OP2 took the objection that complaint was not filed within limitation period as product was purchased in 2016 and complaint was filed in 2020; however, it is the plea of complainant that, though, some technical glitches of water leakage was noticed in the beginning after some time after the purchase of refrigerator; same could not be repaired by the technician of OP2, and product suddenly stopped working and began non-operational in the month of October 2019; complaint was filed on 26.10.2020, since it was continuing defects; we hold that complaint was filed within statutory period as provided in the C.P. Act, 2019; therefore, this objection of OP2 is dismissed; OP2 also took objection of no cause of action; and no deficiency of service on its part are also dismissed as the facts, circumstances and evidences are establishing case of complainant against OPs.
6.5. OP2’s plea that warranty period of the product was one year from the date of purchase i.e. 04.10.2016, but complainant has objected this plea of OP2 and has submitted the ‘document of warranty’ which reads as under:
‘A relationship for life with
the 10(9+1) year warranty,
the 5 (4+1) year warranty’
(a) under the terms of warranty of 1 year service will be provided only within the municipal limits of the locality or where the repair shop or authorized representative/ dealer is available.
(b) under 9/4 year warranty on compressor visit charges will be applicable with in the municipal limits of the town where WOIL has its branch office or authorized services centre visit charges shall constitute of to and fro travelling charges and other incidental expenses; all claims are limited to the repair or the replacement of the defective parts only and do not include any labour or transportation charges.
6.6. Further, OP2 has filed reply under signature of Mr. Rupesh Kaushik stated to be authorized signatory but no authorization letter in his favour has been submitted by OP2; nor any authorization letter has been submitted authorizing Neeraj Mehta, Sr. Manager (Legal) who has filed affidavit on its behalf.
Based on the above conditions of warranty; it was unfair on the part of technician of the authorized service centre ‘ Impulz Home Care’ at Todapur, New Delhi to demand Rs. 7,125/- from the complainant for the replacement of the compressor which is within four years of the purchase of the refrigerator, as OP2 in its reply has admitted four years warranty period for repair/ replacement of compressor as per the conditions of warranty outlined above, therefore, OP2’s plea is falsified by its own document and this should have been the reason for not submitting the warranty document by OP2.
6.7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we conclude that refrigerator/ product was defective; it was with in the warranty period but defect was not cured and repaired by OP2 after the same was brought into the notice of OP2, so, deficiency of service on the part of OP2 is writ large and also stands proved by the complainant.
6.8. No relief has been claimed by complainant against OP1 from whom the product was purchased; OP1 was served on 11.12.2020 but did not appear nor any reply, affidavit, written argument has been filed on its behalf.
7. In view of the above discussion and deliberations, submissions and documents submitted by the complainant, deficiency on the part of OP2 stands proved by the complainant and complainant has succeeded in establishing her claim.
8: Therefore, we hold that OP2 is liable to pay/ refund the purchase cost of refrigerator i.e. Rs. 20,500/- to the complaint with interest (but rate of interest not deciphered by the complainant); complainant has also claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and physical harassment without giving any justification; however, we quantify the compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the complainant and against OP2.
9. In view of para no. 6.7, OP1 is not liable to pay, hence, no order against OP1 as no relief has been claimed against it.
10. We direct OP2 to refund Rs. 20,500/- the purchase cost of the refrigerator along with interest @ 7 % pa on this amount, apart from Rs. 10,000/- as compensation within 30 days from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
11. If aforesaid amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, the amount of Rs. 20,500/- shall carry interest @ 8 % pa instead of 7% pa.
12. Announced on this 10th July, 2023. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
