In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.   422 / 2010.

1)                   Sri Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee,

24/1A, Baishanab Ghata Lane,

Amar Usha Aloy, Flat no. A-1, Kolkata-47.                                               ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   The Deputy Service Manager,

Whirlpool of India Ltd.,

8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017.

2)                   The Director, Whirlpool of India Ltd.,

A-4, MIDC, Ranjan Gaon. Taluka Shiror, Pune-419204.                             ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member

Order No.   16    Dated  30/04/2012.

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee against the o.ps. Whirlpool of India Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased one front loading washing machine having brand name Whirlpool AVM 501 (5 kg) Professional on 13.9.08 at a cost of Rs.14,500/- having a warranty of two years which was delivered to the complainant on 15.9.08 and installed on 16.9.08 and instantly the machine started emitting abnormal sound with vibration and complainant was lodged on 17.9.08.Subsequently after through check up by the related shop viz. Great Eastern Trading Co. hard broken Styrofoam was found inside the machine and even after the removal said broken Styrofoam the machine continued to abnormal sound and vibration and o.p. company advised for immediate replacement of the defective machine on 19.9.08, annex-C of the complaint. Ultimately the defective machine was finally replaced on 25.9.08, annex-D of the complaint. That machine on 216.10 broke down and was not responding to any modes of the operating switches. Again complainant lodged complaint to the o.ps. on 2.8.10 and after on 11.9.10 when after assurance of immediate redressal of the problem was made from the call centre, a technician came and commented that the spare parts has to be changed. But ultimately no such spare parts was available neither the machine was replaced as per conditions of warranty. Thereafter, on 8.9.10 complainant received one letter by o.p. company where it was suggested for replacement of the defective machine by paying 30% of the new product and Rs.500/- of the transportation charges, annex-F of the complaint. Finding no alternative complainant has filed this case with the prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.

            O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. After scrutinizing all the documents filed by both the parties brought to the notice of the Forum and hearing vividly the case of the complainant and o.ps. from their ld. lawyers beyond doubt that this admitted fact that the complain ant purchased a washing machine manufactured by o.ps. company and it is also admitted fact that immediate after purchase of the said machine that goods was suffering from one or more defects and ultimately on 8.9.10 complainant received letter from o.ps. with a suggestion for replacement of that defective machine by paying 30% of the new product and Rs.500/- for transportation charges. From the record it is crystal clear that the complainant has to suffer harassment from the very next day after purchasing of that machine and we are of the opinion that the machine was suffering from manufacturing defect. It is settle principle of law that if any new goods has manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is duty bound to replace the machine with a new one of same particulars which shall be free from any defect or to refund the cost of that goods to the purchaser. It is also pertinent from the record that complainant, however, used the washing machine without any complaint more than one year i.e. from 25.9.08 upto 20.6.10. Considering the all above discussion we are of the opinion that o.ps. have supplied the washing machine which was suffering from manufacutirng defect and for that complainant has to suffer harassment and mental agony and o.ps. are liable to replace the machine receiving a percentage of amount of the new machine from the complainant and to pay compensation to the complainant towards for his harassment.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the petition of complaint is allowed with cost on contest in part against  o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to replace the machine in question without taking any transportation charges from the complainant with a new machine of same description which shall be free from any defect. Complainant is directed to pay 25% of that new product to the o.ps.. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

   _____Sd-_______             _______Sd-_______            ______Sd-________

     MEMBER                            MEMBER                        PRESIDENT