Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/613/2014

Bhupesh Kaushik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirlpool Customer Care Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gopal Sharma Adv.

28 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint No.	:	613/2014
Date of Institution	:	26.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	28/07/2015

 

                       

Bhupesh Kauhsik son of Sh.Rajender Kumar Kaushik r/o Flat No.102, Block C-3, Gulmohar Trends, Dhakouli, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.

                   ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.   Whirlpool Customer Care Center, Supreme Electro-Mech Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.78, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.   Whirlpool India Ltd., Plot No.A-4, MIDC, Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirur, District Pune, Maharashtra through its Director/Authorized Signatory.

     2^nd Address: SCO No.910, NAC Mani Majra, UT, Chandigarh -160101 (Corporate Agency Office).

3.   Next Retail India Ltd., SCO No.355, Sector 9, Panchkula through its Manager. ( Deleted vide order dated 28.04.2015).

...Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Complainant in person.

          Ms.Geeta Gulati, Advocate for OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

         

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.      In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased a refrigerator vide bill dated 09.05.2010 for Rs.20,300/- from OP No.1, having one year comprehensive warranty and 4 years warranty for the compressor.  According to the complainant, on 16.04.2014 the refrigerator stopped working and he lodged the complaint on the customer care number.  On checking the refrigerator, the engineer of OP No.1 told the complainant that the compressor was not working and the same was to be replaced free of cost.  It has further been averred that the OP No.1 charged a sum of Rs.2220/- despite the fact that the defect was in the compressor and nothing was to be charged under the warranty period.  Moreover, the refrigerator was delivered at his premises after three days i.e. on 21.04.2014 and he was assured that the compressor had been changed and it was in working condition and no problem would come in the compressor in future.   It has further been averred that on 23.04.2014, the refrigerator again stopped working and, therefore, he approached OP No.1 who assured him that they would come on the same day to rectify the problem but to no effect. Ultimately, he lodged the complaint at customer care number.  On 22.05.2014, the engineer of the OPs assured the complainant that the compressor was to be replaced free of cost.  Thereafter, the complainant made repeated calls to the OPs but to no avail. Lastly, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 08.09.2014, Annexure C-4 upon the Opposite Parties but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.      OP No.1 in its written statement has pleaded that the refrigerator has already been used for a period of four years, when the problem in the compressor was detected and the same was replaced by filing up the gas. The replaced compressor worked for few days and had to be replaced yet again with a new compressor.  It has further been averred that the complainant has not been charged both times for the replaced compressor as the same was under warranty.  It has further been pleaded that the problem is with regard to non-cooling which is due to the external factors rather then defect in the replaced compressor, which is causing non-cooling of the refrigerator.   The complainant has to maintain a cool external environment, dust free coils of the compressor and maintaining good external electrical connections and the refrigerator is to be kept away from the moisture.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant be directed to cooperate with it and it be allowed to inspect the product and carry out the necessary repair, if any.   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.      Notice was sent for the service of Opposite Party No.2 through registered post on 19.02.2015.  However, neither the same was received back served/unserved till date.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that it had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 on the date fixed, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.03.2015.
4.      We have heard the complainant, in person, Counsel for OP No.1 and have gone through the documents on record.
5.      The case of the complainant is that despite replacing the compressor twice and making repeated requests, the OPs have failed to set right the refrigerator as the same is still not giving proper cooling.
6.      On the other hand, the stand of OP No.1 is that the compressor is not giving cooling due to the external factors and, therefore, they be allowed to inspect the refrigerator and to carry out the repairs for which the cooperation of the complainant is necessary as he refused to get the refrigerator repaired after the replacement the compressor second time.  However, we find no weight in this submission of the Counsel for OP No.1 because the perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant was in continue touch with the OPs and he made repeated requests to the OPs to repair the refrigerator.  The complainant has also placed on record a copy of the legal notice served upon the OPs but they did not bother even to reply to the said legal notice. Admittedly, the refrigerator is not giving proper cooling despite changing of the compressor meaning thereby that there is some defect either in the refrigerator or the compressor and the same requires to be repaired.  Moreover, OP No.1 has already shown its willingness to repair the refrigerator in its written statement/arguments.   The complainant was deprived of proper/continuous use of the refrigerator due to non-cooling of the refrigerator and, therefore, OPs No.1 and 2 are liable to compensate him on this count.
7.       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed.  Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed as under :-

1. To repair the refrigerator of the complainant to his satisfaction by repairing/replacing the necessary part(s) as per its warranty manual after picking the same from the premises of the complainant;
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

8.      This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
9.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28/07/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER