Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

125/2014

S.Ramanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Vice President,/s.Whirpool Home Care Limited,Whirlpool India Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.Karunakaran-com

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on:  02.07.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  10.02.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY  THE 10^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

 

C.C.NO.125/2014

 

 

 

S.Ramanan,

Flat No.201, Plot No.1612,

New No.38, 5^th Street, 12^th Main Road,

H-Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

                                                                                        ..... Complainant

 

 

..Vs..

 

1. The Vice President,

M/s.Whirlpool Home Care Limited,

Whirlpool of India Limited,

Consumer Service Head Office,

No.28, NIT, Faridabad 121 001.

 

2. M/s. Happy Home Care rep. by its Manager,

Whirlpool India Limited, No.1943, New No.78,

18^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 08.07.2014

Counsel for Complainant                       : M/s.R.Karunagaran, R.Saritha,                                                                         

                                                                    B.Nagarajan and P.Thiyagaraj

 

Counsel for 1st opposite party                   : M/s.Lavanya Shankar

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                       : Ex - parte     

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to provide Ne Whirl Pool Washing Machine and compensation for mental agony with cost u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had purchased a Whirl Pool Washing Machine on 08.08.2003. The machine was serviced whenever there was problem in it. During July 2013 the machine got developed into some problem and the Complainant lodged a Complaint with Whirl Pool India Limited. A service engineer from the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the authorized sales and service centre for the 1^st Opposite Party/manufacturer came and examined the machine.  He changed some parts at the cost of around Rs.4,365/- and service engineer also assured that the problem repaired and the machine would serve another 5 to 6 years.  He has also collected a sum of Rs.285/- towards service charges. After the service engineer left, the Complainant loaded the machine with cloths for washing and switched on the machine.  The Complainant heard a big noise and the machine fallen down the frame legs had broken. Then the Complainant immediately called the same service engineer through phone he came within half an hour and informed that the outer frame had to be changed which would cost of Rs.6,300/- and no service charges would be levied. The Complainant also spent the said amount and outer frame was changed after 3 days. The machine was worked for another few days and again one fine morning when the machine switched on, a heavy noise was heard and immediately switched of the machine. In the meantime due to the daughter’s marriage he could not contact the Opposite Parties and on 5^th September 2013 he lodged a Complaint with Opposite Parties. On the 4^th day only, the 2^nd Opposite Party engineer came and after examination he had informed that the machine had developed some mechanical problem and parts has to be replaced which would cost around Rs.4,500/-. The Complainant replied, he would not pay any amount further. After few days the 1^st Opposite Party contacted and enquired about the service. After long time Mr.Sunil from the second Opposite Party came and took the machine and after 22 days on 25.11.2013, the machine was returned to the Complainant.  After 3 days Mr.Sasikumar engineer from 2^nd Opposite Party came and he also did not do anything. The machine is in worse damaged condition and cannot be used further and the Opposite Parties have not rectified the defects. The 2^nd Opposite Party used defective goods supplied by the 1^st Opposite Party and thereby both of them have committed deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to provide a fresh piece of Whirl Pool Washing Machine and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

          2. The 2^nd Opposite Party was remained absent and he was set exparte.

3. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          Admittedly the machine was purchased in the year 2003 and the Complainant almost used the product for 10 years. Therefore natural wear and tear is bound to occur in the product. The 1^st Opposite Party instructed the 2^nd Opposite Party to do the needful and after inspection the 2^nd Opposite Party informed that the cabinet and suspension rod need to be changed which was approved by the Complainant. When this Opposite Party coming to know that the Complainant is encountering problem, they had instructed the 2^nd Opposite Party on non chargeable basis upon which the 2^nd Opposite Party took delivery of the product from the Complainant. Further the product is almost a decade old, obtaining spares for the same became a difficult task that is the reason the 2^nd Opposite Party has taken 3 weeks to fix the problem.  This Opposite Party even now ready and willing to go out of the way to ensure that the product functioning to its optimum  level. There is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5.POINT : 1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a Whirl Pool Washing Machine on 08.08.2013  which was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the dealer and service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party and the said product developed some problem during July 2013 and the Complainant lodged a Complaint with the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party service engineer came  and after examination told that some parts has to be replaced with a cost of Rs.4,365/- and the same was changed by the 2^nd Opposite Party engineer   and issued Ex.A1 receipt for replacing the parts and inspection charges of Rs.285/- was also collected under Ex.A2 and on 01.07.2013, the machine had fallen down when the Complainant loaded the machine and switched on, the frame legs  had broken and again the Complainant called the same engineer and he inspected and informed that to replace the outer frame the same would cost a sum of Rs.6,500/- and after few days on 05.07.2013 the said engineer replaced cabinet and suspension rods and after collecting amount  of Rs.6,300/- issued Ex.A3 receipt  and again the machine was taken at the advice of the 1^st Opposite Party by the 2^nd Opposite Party service engineer for repair and after 22 days the product was returned to the Complainant.

          6. The 2^nd Opposite Party who had done service to the Complainant washing machine remained absent and he was set ex-parte.  The Complainant made Complaint to the 1st Opposite Party at the initial stage. The 1^st Opposite Party also pleaded in his written version that he instructed the 2^nd Opposite Party to do the needful.  The 2^nd Opposite Party informed the 1^st Opposite Party that cabinet and suspension rod need to be changed and thereafter it was also changed and for the said replacing the parts Ex.A3 was issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party service engineer. When again the product became defective and Complaint made to the 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party had instructed the 2^nd Opposite Party to do the needful on non chargeable basis. Though the 2^nd Opposite Party took the product with them and returned after 22 days without rectifying any problem. Even, the 1^st Opposite Party specifically instructed the 2nd Opposite Party to do the needful on non chargeable basis, the 2^nd Opposite Party failed to render service and failed to rectify the washing machine is deficiency on their part.  The 1^st Opposite Party also gave instruction to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party failed to render service, the 1^st Opposite Party is no way liable for the act committed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, we hold that the 2nd Opposite Party only committed deficiency in service to the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

7. POINT NO :2

           The Complainant prayed for replacement of fresh piece of Whirl Pool Washing Machine. The Complainant used the product  for more than 10 years, since purchase. It is decided in point one that the service rendered by the 2^nd Opposite Party is deficiency, in spite of that the 1^st Opposite Party issued necessary instructions to rectify the repair. Since, the case relates to only deficiency in respect of service rendered to the product only, the Complainant is not entitled for replacement of new product. The 2^nd Opposite Party while rendering service he has collected amounts through Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 to a tune of Rs.10,750/-. However, the 2^nd Opposite Party had not rectified the product into a working condition. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the 2^nd Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs.10,750/-  from the Complainant towards service charges. Due to defective service the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order a compensation of Rs.5,000/- besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 1^st Opposite Party and other relief is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 2^nd Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.10,750/- (Rupees ten thousand seven hundred and fifty only)  to the Complainant collected towards service charges and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony , besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 1^st Opposite Party and other relief is dismissed.

          The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 10^th  day of February 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 01.07.2013                   Cash Bill issued by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 01.07.2013                   Cash Bill issued by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A3 dated 05.07.2013                   Cash Bill issued by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A4 dated 05.12.2013                   Complainant representation to the Opposite Parties

                                                    with acknowledgement card

 

Ex.A5 dated 07.01.2014                   Legal Notice issued by the Complainant with

                                                   Acknowledgement Card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      ……. NIL…….

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT