Delhi

East Delhi

CC/782/2012

B.K THAPLIYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

WHIRLPOOL INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                              CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CASE NO-782/12

In the matter of:

Sh. B.K.THAPLIYAL,

S/O Sh. P.D.TAPLIYAL,

C/O SH. VINOD PESWANI,

C-219(GROUND FLOOR), MADHUBAN,

DELHI-110092

Complainant

Vs

1. MANAGER, WHIRLPOOL SERVICE CENTRE

C/O KOOL CARE SERVICE, ALLHA COLONY,

OPP. NAVNITI APARTMENTS, I.P.EXTN.,

1.  
2. WHIRLPOOL INDIA LTD.

PLOT NO.40, SECTOR-44, GURGAON, HARYANA.

3. JUSTDIAL.COM DELHI, A, 39/40, SECTOR-16,

BEHIND MC.DONALD, NOIDA-201301(U.P.)

4. MR. NADEEM,

WHIRLPOOL REFRIGERATOR ENGINEER,

C/O JUSTDIAL.COM DELHI, A, 39/40, SECTOR-16,

BEHIND MC.DONALD, NOIDA-201301(U.P.)

 

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                 DATE OF ADMISSION-05/10/2012

                                                                                DATE OF ORDER         -09/09/2015

 

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator from M/S Smart Mart Store Pvt. Ltd for a sum of Rs.12,500/- on 18/02/2004 with seven year protection plan and three year additional peace of mind plan. In March 2012 the Refrigerator’s cooling was low and it finally stopped working in the beginning of June 2012. The customer care was contacted through justdial.com, Mr. Nadeem turned up and detached the Compressor Unit to find fault and he diagnosed the low pressure in the compressor unit and suggested the remedy by replacement of whole unit. He charged Rs.300/- he assured fixing the defect after consultation with approval of higher authorities. Later on he informed the disapproval by the Whirlpool higher authorities. Again through the service of justdial.com complaint was lodged and Mr. Sameer Alam appeared and started the diagnosis process, he informed that “Relay Coil” of Rs.800/- is missing and he contacted Mr. Nadeem and recorded his conversation but he did not provide any documentary evidence. He demanded the amount Rs.2067/- for repairing of the Refrigerator which was refused by the complainant. After three days some other person appeared, he demanded Rs.4,500/- but that was also refused. The complainant has alleged that under the protection plan it was the duty of the respondent to have fixed the problem or have replaced the compressor. He has prayed for the repair of the Refrigerator to make it fully operational and Rs.30,000/- towards for the cost andcompensation.

            The OP-3 in their written statement has denied their liability. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and Respondent (Just dial). Respondent 1&2 admit that they have given the warranty of this Refrigerator of 1+6 years that is one year comprehensive and six year for the compressor. As a special deal additional warranty for three years after the completion of seven year of warranty in which the compressor of the Refrigerator is covered and no other part of the Refrigerator is covered under the PMP plan. It is also alleged that they never denied to provide after sale service as assured under the terms of the warranty. The plea of limitation is also taken. They further alleged that the respondent at no point of time denied under the PMP service of the compressor and still ready to provide the same. Rest, all the allegation of the complaint has been denied.

            The complainant has placed on record affidavit, documents. An affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Sandhu has also been filed on behalf of the respondent.

            Heard and perused the record.

            The short question which arises for our consideration in this complaint is as to whether the Refrigerator in question was suffering from any defect in the compressor in the month of June 2012. Another question which crop in the complaint is as to whether under the three year additional peace of mind plan, it was the compressor which was only covered or Refrigerator as a whole was covered. This fact is to be proved by the complainant that in the month of June 2012, this Refrigerator has a problem with the compressor. As per the policy of the respondent company the offer of warranty of the Refrigerator is one year and for compressor there was a warranty of six years. The Annexure 5 is a service request dated 17/04/2007. The description which has been given shows that the gas was refilled and there was no problem with the compressor. The complainant has purchased AMC for two years by paying Rs.1950/-. On 15/04/2007 when the Refrigerator is covered by the three years additional peace of mind plan, there was no justification for the complainant to purchase the AMC for further two years. This document clearly shows that warranty was only for one year for the whole of the Refrigerator and for compressor it was six years. There is no documents on record which could prove that this Refrigerator compressor is suffering from any defect. The service request by the some other person Mr. T.Giri has no relevance so far as this case is concerned. It was for the complainant to establishes the defect in the the compressor, which he has failed to established. The three years of additional peace of mind plan which is Annexure-3 clearly mentioned that this three year additional warranty is only for compressor. For availing the benefit under the three year additional peace of mind plan, the complainant has to established that the compressor of the Refrigerator was defective, there is no proof of any defect in the compressor of the fridge.

            In view of the above this cannot be accepted that on the date of the complaint respondent was any under obligation to repair any other part of the Refrigerator under the three year additional peace of mind plan. There is no document on record to support the contention of the complainant that relay was lost because of the employees of the respondent. Still the Refrigerator could be repaired by the respondent after taking the money for the replacement of any parts and service rendered. This Refrigerator was purchased in the year 2004, it was having the warranty of one year. The complaint in respect of this Refrigerator could only be maintained by the complainant only when there is defect with the compressor within 7 years+ 3 years additional peace of mind plan that take us to 10 year protection to the compressor of this Refrigerator. Since the complainant has come up with the specific allegation of problem with the compressor. This cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. It is altogether a different aspect that the complainant has failed to establish the defect with the compressor. As such no relief can be provided for the replacement of the compressor. Taking this fact into consideration that the complainant has paid for the AMC, the respondent should undertake the repair of the Refrigerator on payment basis.

            We direct the respondent to remove the defects from the Refrigerator of the complainant on payment basis and if they found that the compressor is defective the same should be replaced free of cost. In these circumstances, we are not making any order as to cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.

 

SUBHASH GUPTA                          POONAM MALHOTRA                       N.A.ZAIDI

     (MEMBER)                                              (MEMBER)                              (PRESIDENT)