PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 2.9.2004 the complainant purchased a Whirlpool 350 LT IM ELITE refrigerator in the name of his mother and the same was having warranty of 5 years for which the complainant also took AMC which is still active.  In January 2009 the refrigerator started developing defects and when his mother informed OP-2 they charged for the same after doing the required repairs.  The refrigerator again developed the technical snag for which he again had to make the payment.  On 20.5.2010, he contacted OP-1 as the refrigerator stopped working but they asked for payment upfront for the engineer’s visit. Thereafter he personally visited the Whirlpool office at Manimajra on 22.5.2010 and met Ms. Boskey who while recording his complaint realized that the refrigerator was still under AMC warranty and no money should have been paid. Thereafter they even offered to buy back the refrigerator which had cost him Rs.21,800/- for Rs.3,000/- only.  It has been alleged that the act and conduct of the OPs caused him lot of mental and physical harassment.  Hence this complaint.

2.             In their written reply the OP-1 did not dispute the facts with regard to purchase of the refrigerator.  However, it has been stated that the refrigerator was registered with the service center and not at the call center of the OP.  It has been further stated that the service center was not informed about the AMC by the complainant and, therefore, the amount was charged as per the terms and conditions of regular warranty.  It has been denied that the OP ever offered to buy back the refrigerator.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Initially Sh. V.P. Singh, Director/representative appeared for OP-2 and the case was fixed for filing reply and evidence.  However, thereafter neither the reply & evidence was filed nor anybody appeared on their behalf, hence they were proceeded against exparte.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person as well as the Learned counsel for OP-1 and have also perused the record, including written arguments.

6.             The main contention of the complainant is that despite the refrigerator under AMC, the OPs had charged the repair as well as labour charges causing mental and physical harassment.  In support of his contention, he has placed on record Annexure C-1 which is the copy of the computer generated bill to prove that the said refrigerator was purchased in the name of the mother of the complainant from Utility Trading Engineers, Chandigarh on 02.09.2004, whereafter it developed some defect on 14.01.2009 wherein vide invoice Annexure C-2, a total sum of Rs.2,088/- were charged for some parts like power board for Rs.1200/-, defrost system for Rs.955/- including labour charges of Rs.395/- and transport charges of Rs.250/- were also charged. Again some part worth Rs.1,050/- was replaced by OP-2 for which service charges of Rs.390/- were again charged from the complainant vide Annexure C-3 dated 25.04.2009. Annexure C-4 dated 22.05.2010 is the copy of the service request sheet of OP-1, which shows that a defect of capillary block was detected and gas was required to be filled in the refrigerator but it was refused by the complainant to do it.

7.             On the other hand OP-1 contended that the complaint regarding the refrigerator was registered with the service center (OP-2) and not at their (OP-1) call center. The service center (OP-2) was not informed about the AMC by the complainant and, therefore, the amount was charged as per the terms and conditions of regular warranty. 

8.             We have gone through the records very carefully and find that the complainant in his complaint has nowhere mentioned that at the time of repair of the said refrigerator vide Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-3, it was ever intimated by them to the service engineer of OP-2 that the refrigerator was under AMC.  It has also not been disputed by the complainant that they directly approached OP-2 (service centre of OP-1). Otherwise also, it has nowhere been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint that he ever lodged the complaint to OP-1 with respect to the defect in refrigerator. In the present case, the AMC was taken from OP-1 but the complainant had approached directly to the OP-2 (service centre of OP-1), therefore, it was his/their duty to intimate the OP-2 regarding AMC, which admittedly, has not been done by the complainant. Had the complainant/mother of the complainant intimated regarding AMC to the service engineer of the OP-2, they would have done the repair as per the terms and conditions of the AMC but it is not so in the present case.  

9.             The complainant has not been able to produce the copy of the terms and conditions of the AMC.  It has been admitted by OP-1 that the said refrigerator was under AMC.  As per the terms and conditions of the AMC mentioned on Annexure C-3 the labour AMC contract covers only waiver of visiting or labour charges, cost of spare parts was to be borne by customer/complainant and also any transportation for taking product to the service centre for repair was also to be borne by customer/complainant. In the present complaint as per Annexure C-2 and C-3, a total sum of Rs.395/- towards labour charges plus Rs.390/- towards service charges totaling to Rs. 785/- have been charged by OP-2 (service centre of OP-1) unintentionally as they were not made aware of the AMC  by the complainant and in our view, at the most, as per the terms and conditions of the AMC mentioned at Annexure C-2, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.785/- only. 

10.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed in part and the same is partly allowed.  The OPs jointly and severally are directed to refund to the complainant Rs.785/- which were unintentionally charged by them as labour/service charges being the refrigerator under AMC cover.  The order shall be complied with by the OPs within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 14.06.2010, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

11.           Needless to mention that if there is any defect in the said refrigerator or it is not functional; the OPs shall remove the defects, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty/AMC.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                            Sd/-                                       Sd/-