BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Charanjit Singh son of late S.Jaswant Singh, aged 46 years, Shop No.24, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Whirlpool Home Care Consumer Cell Whirlpool India Limited, Consumer Service Head Office, 28, NIT, Faridabad 121001, through its Director.

2]  R.R.Enterprises, Authorized Service Partner Whirlpool Home Care Shop No.29, Sector 27, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL        

PRESIDING MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA

                                   MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Mashwinder Singh, Counsel for complainant.

Ms.Geeta Gulati, Counsel for OP-1.

OP-2 already exparte.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one Split AC of Whirlpool, Model 10541, 1.5 Ton on 28.6.2007. The complainant opted for Plan code No.1023232 (Ann.C-1 & C-2) on payment of Rs.4300/-, under which maintenance of said AC was covered. The said maintenance plan was effective for the period from 24.5.2008 to 23.5.2012 i.e. for four years. The plan covers warranty parts, visits/labour charges, cartage and preventive maintenance, per year.

         It is averred that that AC of the complainant was not working in summers of 2010. The said problem was brought to the notice of OP No.2, but it did not visit as per the mandatory schedule dates of the plan i.e. 13.9.2008, 8.9.2009, 3.9.2010 and 29.8.2011 (Ann.C-2). As such, the complainant had to engage a private mechanic three times and spent Rs.4,000/- towards for repair of said AC. Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       OP No.1 filed reply, stating therein that Home Care Plan covers the warranty parts, visit/labour charges and cartage charges and one preventive maintenance per year. So, as per the plan, the answering OP demanded labour/visit charges, which was refused by the complainant. It is stated that the Engineer of the OP, after inspecting the product, presumes that the wires have been cut by rodents and needs to be changed. But as the wires do not fall under the warranty parts, therefore, the complainant was liable to pay for the same along with labour charges, which was also refused by the complainant.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of the notice, hence proceeded against exparte.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OP No.1 and have also perused the record. 

5]       The contention of the ld.Counsel for the complainant is that complainant had purchased Home Care Plan from OPs by paying Rs.4300/- vide Ann.C-1 & C-2, but inspite of that when he brought the problem in his AC, to the knowledge of OPs, they did not turn up to check it and rectified the defect.  They rather demanded visiting and labour charges. It is also contended that due to the said deficient act of the OPs, the complainant had to hire the service of a private mechanic to get his AC repaired being the summer season on its peak in 2010.

6]       On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for OP NO.1 argued that the OP No.1, had rightly demanded the Visiting & Labour Charges, which was refused by the complainant.  It is also argued that the wires of the product in question, as per the report of the Engineer, needs replacement, which do not fall under warranty, but since the complainant refused to pay for it, the needful could not be done.     

7]       We do not find any merit in the contention of ld.Counsel for OP NO.1.  In the Home Care Plan sold to the complainant by the OPs against the payment of Rs.4300/- (Ann.C-1 & C-2), the following has been stipulated:-

    “Your Plan covers: WARRANTY PARTS, VISIT/LABOUR CHARGES, CARTAGE AND 1 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE per YEAR

As a part of our commitment in the contract, the tentative schedule of preventive maintenance is:

8]       A bare reading of the above lines of the said plan, makes it clear that the OPs were to provide warranty parts, visit/labour charges, cartage and 1 preventive maintenance per year, as per the dates given therein. Therefore, the demand made by the OP No.1 from the complainant, as admitted in the reply, towards visiting and labour charges, were totally illegal and unjustified, especially when the payment of Rs.4300/- had already been made for the plan, covering such facility/services.  It is a simple logic that if the complainant had to pay the visiting & labour charges, then for what purpose he had paid Rs.4300/- to the OPs while opting for the plan in question.  Moreover, the OPs have not been able to prove that they have visited the house of the complainant to check the product in question, as stipulated in the Plan and also reproduced above, towards 01 Preventive Maintenance per year.

9]       The OP No.1 has placed on record one document as Ann.OP-1 to prove that their official had visited the place of complainant a number of times, but he refused to pay any charges.  However, this document Ann.OP-1, from the face of it, proves to be a procured & prepared one, created with a sole motive & intention to make the defence, in order to shield their deficient act. The document (Ann.OP-1) neither bears the Stamp of OP No.1 nor any Company nor the signature of its Official or Officer, who had visited the place of complainant & prepared it. Hence, it cannot be relied upon being an unauthentic document. 

10]      More so, the non-appearance of OP No.2, despite service, draws an adverse inference against it.  The non-appearance of OP NO.2 proves that it had nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant and the same are correct.

11]      From the above discussion & findings, we are of the firm opinion that the OPs had not only failed to render proper services to the complainant, but also indulged into an unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to jointly & severally refund an amount of Rs.4300/- to the complainant received by them against the Home Care Plan in question.  They are also directed to jointly & severally pay compensation of Rs.2500/- for causing mental & physical harassment to the complainant, besides paying litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- for unnecessary forcing & compelling the complainant to enter into unwanted & uncalled for litigation, which otherwise could have been avoided.

         This order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.6800/-  (Rs.4300/- + 2500/-) along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 14.05.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs, as aforesaid.

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