D.O.F:15/11/2017
D.O.O:10/10/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.224/2017
Dated this, the 10th day of October 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Asharaf P.A., aged 33 years,
S/o Abdulrahiman P
R/at Patla House, Patla Village and Post,
Kasaragod Taluk and District – 671124.
(Adv: B. Ramakrishna Bhat & Chethana Krishna B.) : Complainant
And
- The Proprietor, Star System,
Padoor Shopping Complex,
New Bus Stand, Kasaragod.
(Adv: Nisha K.)
- The Manager, Whirlpool India Ltd.
Corporate Office Plot No.40,
Sector – 44, Gurgaon – 122002. : Opposite Parties
(Adv: K.S. Arundas, C.V. Narayanan & Annamma John)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator on 05/07/2016 from opposite party No.1 for Rs.37,800/- with a warranty of ten years. He also purchased LG Washing Machine. The opposite party No.1 explained quality of product and performance of refrigerator. After 15 days, leakage of water is noticed from backside. Fridge is not working properly. When reported, opposite party promised to send service team. Technician came defect rectified. But within two days problem still continued again. Technician cured, but problem continued. Thus fridge suffer manufacturing defect. The complainant sought replacement of defect free product or refund of its price with damage and costs.
The opposite party No.1 filed written version. Opposite party No.1 initially denied entire averments in the complaint. But in para 10 of the version admit purchase of refrigerator after verifying warranty of product. The opposite party No.1 rejected its liability as a dealer for non-compliance of warranty terms and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The opposite party No.2 filed version. Opposite party No.2 admitted purchase of refrigerator denied having any defect or manufacturing defect. The complainant when reported its defects, it is taken for repairs by opposite party No.1 on 05/07/2016 and rectified the defects. On 11/09/2016, another request is received defect is cleared. On 25/08/2017 request came. When service team went, they were not allowed to inspect the refrigerator saying that they are moving to consumer court later there is no complaint from the party. And complainant is not entitled for any relief and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed petition to appoint a technical expert, it is allowed. Filed its report marked as Ext.C1. The complainant filed chief affidavit. He was cross examined as PW1. And produced documents. Ext. A1 is the original cash bill. Ext. A2 is the warranty/owner manual. The opposite party produced Ext.B1 and filed chief affidavit.
Considering both oral and documentary evidence, following points arise in the case for consideration:
- Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and whether covered by warranty and complainant is entitled to its replacement or refund of its price?
- Whether warranty covers only repair and service and whether any of the opposite party are negligent in their services and if so, whether complainant is entitled to any compensation and for what reliefs?
All points are taken up together for decision for convenience.
In the complaint, it is averred that refrigerator was purchased on 05/07/2016. Warranty is for ten years. First time defect noted within fifteen days of its purchase. Service request was made but defects repeated and finally expert visited and filed Ext. C1 report.
Technical expert in his report Ext.C1 mentioned that automatic defrosting is not working and found frost is formed inside freezer. The drainage system cabin to collecting a tray on the back side is blocked. Cooling rate is low compared to normal rate.
Expert report is silent as to the case of manufacturing defect. But details of defects are mentioned and are beyond repair and it could not be put to regular use. The opposite party No.2 filed objections to C1 report.
Hence for the reason aforesaid, the Commission finds that refrigerator is beyond repair, it is purchased on 2016, complaint was filed on 15/11/2017 and six years are over now. Refrigerator is kept idle for more than six years, though it has got warranty for ten years with the defect and non-functioning for more than six years kept idle, it is beyond repair and thus its replacement or refund of its price claimed by the complainant is genuine and hereby allowed.
From the evidence made available there is serious negligence in the service of manufacturer and dealer in the case. There is thus serious deficiency in service in the services of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 being an unfair trade practice. Opposite party No.1 says he is the dealer but claim not liable for any after sales services. In the circumstances of the case, therefore the complainant is entitled to compensation thereof.
The opposite party No.1 & 2 in their written version did not suggest or offered replacement of product or even refund of a portion of price as a good gesture. Whereas a customer having invested his hard earned money for buying a refrigerator, having chosen the much renowned product supplied with such a printed warranty card who did not care to read it or read over the same to his but made him to believe that warranty is for a period of ten year and also considering the serious deficiency in service and negligence, commission finds that opposite party No. 2 is liable to refund Rs. 35,000/- out of 37,800/- collected as per Ext.A1 bill. The complainant is also entitled to compensation and therefore opposite party No.1 and 2 shall pay a reasonable compensation of 10,000/- to the complainant for the reason aforesaid.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing opposite party No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five thousand only) towards refund portion of price of Refrigerator to the complainant with interest at 8% from the date of complaint 15/11/2017 till payment and opposite party No.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Original Cash bill
A2 – Warranty/Owner manual
B1 – Authorization letter
C1 – Technical expert report
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Ashraf P.A.
DW1 – Radhakrishnan
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
