Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1076/2012

SH. H.N SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMART MART - Opp.Party(s)

13 Mar 2013

ORDER

                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

                                                                        GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                              CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CASE NO-1076/12

In the matter of:

Sh. H.N. SHARMA @ H.L. SHARMA

S/o Sh. Durga Prasad Sharma,

R/o B-1175, Sangam Gali,

New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096

Complainant

Vs

M/S SMART MART STORES PVT. LTD.

( Through its Director/Partner/A.R),

B.O. At: A-148, SHAKARPUR,

VIKAS MARG, DELHI-110092

 

THE MANAGER

M/S SHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.,

HEAD OFFICE: Plot No.A-4,

MIDC RANJANGAON, TALUKA,

SHIRPUR, DISTT. PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-419204,

REGIONAL OFFICE AT:

CUSTOMER SERVICE HEAD,

WHIRLPOOL INDIA LTD.,

PLOT NO.40, SECTOR-44,

GURGAON, HARYANA.

Opposite Party

                                                                                     DATE OF ADMISSION-10/01/2013

                                                                                  DATE OF ORDER         -04/09/2015

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

Complainant purchased the refrigerator Model No.12122 F-330 PROTON DLX. VINTAGE WINE ON 18/04/2010 AFTER PAYING Rs.26,650/- of Whirlpool. As per warranty card one year warranty for fridge and four years warranty for compressor were given. Right from the very beginning, the compressor of the Refrigerator was in faulty condition but the Respondent even after knowing dept on giving false assurance that after some time it will start functioning properly. From 06/09/12, the compressor is completely out of order. Complainant alleged various complaints on Customer Care, complaint number were given but no action initiated nor any defects are removed. They are demanding Rs.2200/- from the complainant to repair the refrigerator compressor. The complainant prayed for the change of the faulty Fridge or refund of Rs.26,650/- cost of Fridge, Rs.50,000/- compensation and Rs.11,000/- cost of litigation.

            Respondent in his reply have taken the plea that he is only a dealer of the OP-2. The warranty and guaranty was given by the OP-2. Rest all the allegations has been denied.

            OP-2 in their reply have alleged that the OP never denied to provide the service under the warranty and still ready to provide after sales service to the complainant under the terms of the warranty. The authorized service center has not been made a party. Each and every complaint has been attended on each time but the complainant refused to pay repair charges. As the Refrigerator is out of one year warranty the Refrigerator could not repair due to deficiency on the part of the complainant and his un-cooperative attitude. The complainant has not alleged any specific manufacturing defect in Refrigerator nor claimed that the alleged defect is not rectifiable.

            We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

            As per the allegation in the complaint, the defect is alleged in the compressor of the Refrigerator of which the warranty period was four years. It is not denied from the side of the OP that the warranty of the Refrigerator was not one year and for compressor it was not four years. The complainant which has been reported and mentioned in the complaint is admittedly has been made after approximately two years of its purchase that is beyond the period of validity of the warranty. The complaint which was lodged with the Customer Care in Oct.2012 has to be proved by the complainant that the Refrigerator is suffering from any defect in the compressor. He has filed along with the complaint, the complaint to the Customers Service Head on 13/10/2012 admitting the fact that he is being told by the service engineer that this has defect with compressor and Rs.2200/- are required for the rectification of the defect. The OP has denied this fact and have taken the plea that the Refrigerator was having some other problem for which it being out of warranty. The Respondent demanded the service charges which the complaint refused to pay. In any case this fact is established that there is some problem that this Fridge may not be for the compressor. The Respondent is under obligation during the validity of the warranty of the compressor to check it and if they found that it has any defect then to remove it. We agree with the OP Counsel that the product can only be replaced fit it is established that it was suffering from any manufacturing defect. In this case the first complaint be made after more than two years of the sale to the complaint as such it cannot be believed that it was suffering from any manufacturing defect.

Taking all the facts appearing on record, we are of the view that the respondent are deputed the service engineer to inspect the Fridge of the complainant and if they found that the compressor has any defect then they should remove this defect and if necessary then replace the compressor with the new compressor, as the complaint was made within the period of warranty. For any other repair the complainant shall pay to the OP, the cost of the replacement of any part of the Refrigerator.

With the above direction we disposed off this complainant with no order of cost and compensation.

Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.

SUBHASH GUPTA                          POONAM MALHOTRA                            N.A.ZAIDI

     (MEMBER)                                              (MEMBER)                                      (PRESIDENT)