Karnataka

Kolar

CC/19/2024

EULOGY ESTAFETTE P - Complainant(s)

Versus

WHIRLPOOL INDIA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

22 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:22^nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024

Present:-  1) Sri. Y.S. Thammanna. B.Sc., LL.B…..PRESIDENT

                 2) Sri. Raju. K.S., B.Sc., LL.M., PGDCLP…MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:19/2024

COMPLAINANT/S  :-       Eulogy Estafette.

                                                    S/o. Pathianathan G.A,

                                                    Door No:1800,

                                                    Coronation Town,

                                                    Robertsonpet,

                                                    K.G.F - 563122.

                                                 (In-Person)

-V/s-

OPPOSITE PARTIES    :-   1)  Whirlpool of India Limited,

                                                     Plot No.40, Whirlpool House,

                                                     Sector 44,

                                                     Gurugram,

                                                     Haryana – 122002.

                                           (Rep. by S.K. Manjunath ,Advocate )

2. Hanuman Technologies,

                                                     Authorized Service Partner of  

                                                     Whirlpool India Ltd,

                                                     Doom light circle,

                                                     Kolar,

                                                     Karnataka.

                                                 (Ex-Parte )

3. Home Care Services,

                                                      Ground Floor No.15,

                                                      9^th Main Road,

                                                      BTM Layout, 1^st Stage,

                                                      Bengaluru – 560029.

    (Ex-Parte )

Judgment by

Sri. Raju. K.S. Member

1. The complainant filed this complaint U/s 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 seeking for a direction to the OPs to refund Rs.22,656/- with interest @ 24% P.a along with compensation of Rs.70,000/- for mental agony caused to him. 

2. The case of the complaint is that, after seeing the advertisement post of Op.No.3 in Facebook the complainant on 12.02.2022 had purchased WHIRLPOOL BMR 324L IFPROBMINV340 3S SO by paying Rs.22,656/- to OP.No.3.  The product was purchased in the name of his father Davincie P.  Further the Ops have assured the product having good functionality and covers the warranty for one year on the product and 10 years for compressor.  Further the complainant had paid Rs.3,800/- to delivery person for being delivered the product.  Thereafter, on 13.02.2022 the service person of Ops by name one Mahendra Prabu installed the product in the complainant’s home.  After installation the complainant has paid Rs.500/- to the one Nagendra through UPI payment for registration of the refrigerator since it was factory second product.

3.  Initially the above said product / Refrigerator has worked properly.  After one year 7 months of initialization i.e on 24.10.2023 the refrigerator having the cooling issue.  For that, the complainant has raised complaint to OP.No.1 customer care.  The OP.No.1 has raised a ticket for the complaint of the complainant under request No.BAN24102410483 dated: 24.10.2023. 

4. On 29.10.2023 OP.No.2 authorized service person attended the issue and said that, the refrigerant gas is drained and same was refilled by receiving Rs.2,800/- by complainant.  The service person tried to find the leakage, but he did not found said leakage.  Further the service person has told that, there is 3 months service warranty and if any problem arises within 3 months it will get covered under warranty.  Once again on 26.01.2024 the refrigeration having same issue of cooling for that, the complainant has raised complaint under complaint request No.BAN26012483836 within service warranty period.  On 30.01.2024 again authorized service person attended the issue but did not found leakage and suspected there is an internal leakage which could not be serviceable.  For that, complainant contacted OP.No.2 and one sudarshan authorized person has suggested again to refill the gas and told that, if the problem persists the product will be replaced.  On 05.02.2024 after refill of the gas again the problem persists for that, complainant raised complaint through OP customer care vide request No.BAN05022488638.  On 08.02.2024 OP.No.2 service person visited the complainant’s house and verify the issue and agreed to replace the product.  Further the service person of OP.No.2 has requested the complainant to share invoice copy of the product purchased.  Further the invoice copy shared to OP.No.3 customer care support through e-mail.
5. On 17.02.2024 the OP.No.1 & 2 agreed to replace the defective product.  But on 23.02.2024 OP.No.2 refused to replace the defective product by saying it having different grade.  All the requests of the complainant in this regard are becomes futile.  Even after 01.03.2024 the Ops failed to solve the issue.  This act of the Ops is amounts to unfair trade practice and caused lot of harassment, mental stress to the complainant.  The Ops having bounded duty to replace the defective product immediately after got the complaint.  In this complaint the Ops failed to perform their part of duty hence this complaint seeking for refund of amount of Rs.22,656/- with compensation as prayed in the complaint.

6. After serving of Notice of this Commission the OP.No.1 resisted the claim of the complaint by filing their version.  The OP.No.1 admitted the purchase of product/refrigerator by the complainant but denied the unfair trade practice.  Further the OP.No.1 stated that, they have provided good product to the complainant and same was utilized by the complainant for one year 7 months without any fault.  Thereafter, the Ops have promptly responded to the complaints of complainant towards the product.  Since the complainant had purchased graded product and the graded products are did not replaceable.  Further, the product purchased is strictly adhered to terms and conditions on the products.  Further the OP.No.1 states that, they did not indulge in any unfair trade practice.  Further the Ops promptly attended the issue out of goodwill gesture and necessary repairs are made to the product.  In spite of Ops best effort the product would not be repaired and same is not replaceable as per terms and conditions.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

7. In support of claim of the complainant the complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and filed Exhibit C-1 to C-12 documents.  The Op.No.1 has examined one Karan Kohli Director Legal and Compliance by filing chief examination affidavit with R1 and R2 documents.  Complainant has filed written argument.  Heard the arguments.

8. The points that would be arised for our consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved the unfair trade practice & deficiency of service by the Ops?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief as sought for?

3. What order?

Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1:-  Affirmative.
2. Point No.2:-  Partly Affirmative.
3. Point No.3:-  As per the final order.

9. Point No. (1):- In this complaint there is no dispute, with regard to the complainant on 12.02.2022 had purchased WHIRLPOOL BMR 324L IFPROBMINV340 3S SO by paying Rs.22,656/-to OP.No.3.  Further till 24.10.2023 the said refrigerator worked without complaint for the period of one year 7 months.  On 24.10.2023 the said refrigerator having cooling issue.  For that the complainant complained to the customer care of OP.No.1.  In response of the complaint service person of OP.No.3 attended complaint on 29.10.2023 and found that, the refrigerant gas was drained out.  The service person refill the refrigerant gas by receiving cost of Rs.2,800/-.  That the said service having 3 months service warranty covered under warranty period.  Again on 26.01.2024 said refrigerator persists same issue.  For that the complainant complained to Ops customer care service.  On 30.01.2024 authorized service person of Ops attended the said issue and suspected internal leakage which cannot be serviceable.  In spite of that as per suggestion of the one sudarshan OP.No.2 Manager the service person refills the gas once again.

10. Once again on 05.02.2024 same problem persists then no other way the complainant complained to OP.No.1 customer care.  On 08.02.2024 Ops service person visited the complainant house and confirmed the issue is cannot be repaired and agreed to replace the product, for that suggested to the complainant to share the invoice copy with Ops customer support/grievance through e-mail.  As per say of the service person the complainant shared the invoice copy to service

11. As per Exhibit R-1 filed by the OP.No.1 that the said product having 9+1 year i.e total 10 years warranty.  As per exhibit R-1 the said product one year warranty for entire refrigerator except light bulb, crisper glass, handle, key, leg and add on plastic parts, 9 year warranty on compressor.

12. From reading the exhibit R-1 the above product contains warranty on compressor for the period of 9 years from the date of purchase.  The product purchased on 12.02.2022.  First complaint raised on 24.10.2023, again on 26.01.2024, again on 05.02.2024.  On perusal of the exhibits the complainant raised complaint with regard to cooling issue within stipulated warranty period.  That the OP might to be crept the issue by proper service.  In spite of authorized service person report of OPs that the Ops failed to replace the product defect free.  In the exhibit even the OP authorized representative considered the matter but failed to fix the issue.  This act of the Ops is caused lot of mental agony and loss of precious time of the complainant.  The Ops are supposed to replace the faulty compressor immediately after knowing the fault in compressor.  Instead of that the Ops unnecessary drag the issue and compelled the complainant to file this complaint before this Commission.  The act of the Ops amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as per section 2(47).  The Ops having the opportunity to replace the faulty compressor when they came to know which was faulty.  The OP’s are made the complainant to knock the doors from pillar to post.  In view of the above discussion we came to conclusion that, the Ops are liable to the complainant under deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the Ops are liable to pay compensation by replacing the faulty compressor and put the refrigerator in working condition.  Hence we answered Point No.1 in Affirmatively.

13. POINT NO. 2:-   In this complaint, the complainant seeks for refund of Rs.22,656/- with 24% interest P.a from date of purchase of refrigerator i.e from 12.02.2022.  Admittedly the complainant used the refrigeration till 24.10.2023 without any complaint.  As per exhibits the refrigeration having cooling issue due to faulty compressor.  If the faulty compressor is replaced with new one the issue is going to be solved.  In our view the Ops are to be directed to replace the faulty compressor and put the refrigerator in working condition is the right decision.  Hence we directed the Ops jointly and severally to replace the faulty compressor with new one and put the refrigerator in working condition with necessary service.  In addition to that, the Ops are liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant with Rs.3,000/- litigation cost.  Hence we answered Point No. (2) In Partly Affirmative.

14. POINT NO. 3 :-   As discussed supra, for the foregoing reasons we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part.  The Ops are hereby directed to replace the faulty compressor in WHIRLPOOL BMR 324L IFPROBMINV340 3S SO refrigerator with new compressor and put the said refrigerator in working condition within 30 days from the date of this order.

Further the Ops are hereby directed to pay Rs.3000/- compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered with Rs.3,000/- litigation cost.

      If the OPs are failed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order the Ops are liable to pay Rs.28,656/- with interest @ 9% P.a to till realization.

      In view of the above order if any Interlocutory Applications pending or disposed off.

      Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 22^nd day of NOVEMBER, 2024)

    ( Raju. K.S)                                                 (Y.S. Thammanna.)

        MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

:-ANNEXURE:-

List of documents filed by the complaint side:-

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party No.1 side:-

    ( Raju. K.S)                                                 (Y.S. Thammanna.)

        MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT