IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

             KOLLAM

                                                C.C.No. 35/2022

                                                                                                      PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER 

                      ORDER DATED:   16.10.2023.

BETWEEN

Mrs.Jensy Binu,

Kizhakkethalackal(H), Mathra P.O.,

Punalur, Kollam 691333.                                                  :           Complainant

(By Adv.Sreedevi P.H.)

AND

1. Whirlpool India Ltd.,

Corporate Office, Plot No.40,

Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002.

2. Sagar Agencies,

Sagar Complex,

Post Office Jn., Punalur 691305.

3. Whirlpool India Ltd.,

Regional Office, Al Fia Nagar,

South Kalamassery, Ernakulam 682039.                      :         Opposite Parties

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

          This is a case based on a complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

            The complainant is a housewife and residing in the above said address.  For the household uses the complainant purchased a Refrigerator namely ‘WP REF IF INV CNV278 COOL ILLUSIA  35-21220’ for Rs.29500/- on 21.08.2021 from Sagar Agencies, Punalur.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the Refrigerator and 3^rd opposite party is the Regional Office of Whirlpool India, Ernakulam.  The said Refrigerator was purchased from the 2^nd opposite party believing there is a full warranty provided for the product from the date of purchase of the product vide the warranty card issued by the dealer.  In the warranty card it has been specifically stated that during the warranty period the manufacturer will in a reasonable time cure the defect free of charge by either repairing or replacing the defective Refrigerator.  Within few days of purchase, it was noticed by the complainant that the cooling freezing function of the product was not working and it was informed to 2^nd opposite party on 28.07.2021.   After receipt of the information, representative of 2^nd opposite party came to the complainant’s residence and checked the Refrigerator, assembled the compressor part of Refrigerator and assured that it would function properly.  Even after the repair the Refrigerator had same complaint and hence again contacted the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defect. The repair has been initiated 3 times vide job Nos 1. COC 27082102480, 2. COC 09112182668, 3. COC 09112182833.  Thereafter the complaint of the Refrigerator still exists.  A brand new product was purchased by the complainant for essential household usage, but even after the service of the product the Refrigerator have the same complaint.  So the complainant could not use the same and complainant had approached the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defect of the Refrigerator.  But the 2^nd opposite party denied to provide the proper service to the product.  At the time of the purchase the 2^nd opposite party has given a 10 year warranty to the product, and assured that they will replace the product on 09.11.2021 but as per the assurance given by the 2^nd opposite party for replace the same the 2^nd opposite party has to obtain a permission from the 1^st opposite party who is the manufacturer.  The opposite parties are under obligation to keep the Refrigerator in perfect working condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase by the complainant which they failed to do so.  The complainant is entitled to recover the amount spend for the Refrigerator or to replace the same from the opposite parties and their assets.  Hence the complaint.

            Opposite parties were served notice by this Commission and they duly acknowledged receipt of the notice.   1^st opposite party and 3^rd opposite party filed version but failed to contest the matter.  However, they did not appear before the Commission nor did they submit their version.  On the other hand, the complainant was examined as PW1.  Complainant has submitted an affidavit and provided their testimony as PW1 and produced documents which have been     marked as Ext.P1 to P3 in favour of the complainant.  Importantly there has been no cross examination of the complainant’s affidavit, leaving it unchallenged in this regard.

The complainant alleges the purchase of a refrigerator, an essential household appliance, which displayed abnormal functioning from the outset. The cooling and freezing functions were clearly not working properly. Subsequently, on 27.08.2021, the complainant reported this issue to the 2nd opposite party. In response, a technician from the 2nd opposite party visited the complainant's location, inspected the refrigerator, and serviced the compressor unit, assuring that it would operate correctly. However, despite these efforts, the equipment continued to exhibit the same defect, prompting the complainant to request further repairs. In fact, three repair attempts were made.

It's worth noting that the Ext.P2 user manual outlines the warranty conditions, emphasizing a 'relationship for life' with a 10-year warranty, consisting of a 1-year comprehensive warranty and a 9-year warranty on the compressor, provided the refrigerator remains in the possession of the original purchaser and is used from the date of purchase. The manual also covers a one-year comprehensive warranty for all parts, except specific items such as the light, bulb, crisper glass, handle, key, leg, and add-on plastic parts, ensuring they are free from defects in material and workmanship during normal use and service.

It is evident that the refrigerator purchased in August 2021 developed defects within six months, well within the warranty period. Despite the complainant's repeated requests, it was only on 09.11.2021 that the 2nd opposite party committed to replacing the product, pending approval from the 1st opposite party. During the purchase, the 1st opposite party had promised the customer a 10-year warranty, as documented in Ext.P2. A careful perusal of this document reveals a clear case of manufacturing defects attributed to poor workmanship, resulting in losses and damages suffered by the complainant.

The opposite parties are obligated to maintain the refrigerator in perfect working condition for at least 12 months from the date of purchase by the original complainant, a responsibility they have failed to fulfill. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have displayed negligence in their dealings with the complainant's concerns. The 1st opposite party provided a defective refrigerator, and the 2nd opposite party failed to disclose material defects in the product, indicating unfair trade practices and a deficiency in service on the part of both opposite parties.

We have thoroughly examined the facts and evidence presented in this case. The complaint centers around issues related to the purchase of a Whirlpool refrigerator and allegations of misrepresentation by the opposite parties. After careful consideration of the evidence and the submissions made by the complainant, it is evident that the complainant purchased the Whirlpool refrigerator on 21.08.2021 from the 2nd opposite party. The response of the opposite parties to the complainant's concerns was uncooperative and indicated a reluctance to address the issue in a satisfactory manner.

Based on these findings, it is clear that there is a deficiency in the service provided by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. They supplied a defective refrigerator that did not meet the complainant's order and failed to replace the defective refrigerator as promised. This constitutes a breach of contract and a lack of due diligence on the part of the opposite party.

The complainant, a housewife who relies heavily on essential equipment like a refrigerator, is primarily engaged in domestic affairs. The breach of contract directly impacts her livelihood and domestic activities. Compensation is justified to safeguard the interests of a housewife and maintain the stability of a peaceful home. The suffering endured by the complainant is a result of the actions or negligence of the opposite parties. Compensation serves as a means to ensure that the opposite party is held accountable for their actions and to prevent similar discomfort in the complainant's future.

It is essential to consider the unique situation of a housewife who, often having no formal employment in society, contributes significantly to the household. Compensation for this grievance not only addresses the complainant's individual losses but also carries broader significance in supporting those who contribute to this category of homemakers.

The conduct of the opposite party that compelled a distressed housewife to seek resolution from this Commission unequivocally represents a severe lapse in service by failing to supply a new refrigerator. The complainant has endured significant hardships in managing her household activities due to this situation. Therefore, we believe that the compensation should adequately address the losses incurred in carrying out her household activities as a result of the faulty refrigerator.

After a thorough evaluation of the materials at hand, it is evident that the refrigerator, which was purchased from the second party and manufactured by the first party, developed defects within the stipulated warranty period. Despite the complainant's efforts to seek assistance from both parties regarding the defective refrigerator, and though the complainant knocked the door of each opposite party with the defective refrigerator, neither has taken steps to repair or replace it. Consequently, it is evident that there is a clear deficiency in the services provided by both the first and second parties. The available evidence on record also indicates that these parties have neither rectified the refrigerator's defect nor refunded the amount mentioned in invoice Ext.P1. Therefore, it is only fair that the first and second parties are held responsible for providing reasonable compensation and covering the costs incurred by the complainant.

            In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to either provide the complainant with a brand-new refrigerator of equivalent value and specifications or refund the purchase price of Rs.29,500/- and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
2. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
3. Opposite parties are directed to comply with above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant can initiate execution proceedings.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 16^th  day of  October 2023.

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

 Forwarded/by Order                            

                          Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                : Jensy Binu

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1              : Invoice

Ext.P2             : User Manual

Ext.P3             : Email Communication

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil