Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/378

D.D. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirlpool India - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO. 378/14

Sh. D.D. Sharma, Advocate

S/o Sh.Mann Singh Sharma

R/o F-200, Raj Nagar Part-II,  Palam Colony,    New Delhi-110077                                                      …….. Complainant

VERSUS

 

M/s WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.

40, Whirlpool  House , Gurgoan Sector -44,                              

GUARGAON- 122002, HARYANA

 

M/s Better Deals  Electronic(P) Ltd. B-3, B-1-Block. Community Centre, JanakPuri,  New Delhi-110058                  

 

C/O Better Deals  Electronic (P) Ltd.,(Whirlpool Authorised Service Centre),BG-500, Bagrola, Sector -8,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110075                                                                                                                                   ...…. Opposite Parties

       

 

O R D E R

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant has purchased  new  280 Ltr. three door refrigerator  of Whirlpool company of OP-1  through OP-2  on 11.05.2010 on payment  of Rs. 21,500/- vide invoice  No. 639 , Serial No.31927 dated 11.05.2010  under warranty  for a period of  5 years.  It has been  further  averred  by the complainant  that the said refrigerator  was not cooling  properly, therefore prayed  OP -2 being authorized  dealer for OP-1 on 01.05.2014 the authorized  agent namely  Akhilesh of OP-2  visited  residence of complainant to check  condition of refrigerator  and put his remarks on the receipt “no cooling, compressor QB66AK defective compressor  gas service” .  The said  agent also  issued  bill of Rs.1650/- to which  Rs. 500/- was paid.  On 02.05.2014  another  engineer namely Mr. Rakesh OP-2  visited   house of  complainant   and after checking  faulty refrigerator  told complainant that refrigerator  has to taken  to service  centre for repair.  It is the case of the   complainant that on 03.05.2014   engineer  Sh. Akhilesh lifted  faulty refrigerator  for repair  at its service centre and assured  complainant that refrigerator would be returned  within 48 hours.  However, till date refrigerator was not restored to the  complainant despite server visits.  The complainant had to face many problems in the absence of refrigerator  in such a hot summer season.   Due to aforesaid   deficiency in service of OPs  complainant  has prayed for replacement  of old refrigerator with new  one  also prayed  for compensation  to the  tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- . 

OP-1 filed written statement  taking preliminary objection that the refrigerator was purchased on 11.05.2010  and the warranty  of the refrigerator  has expired on 11.05.2011.  The complainant lodged  first complainant on 01.05.2014 and the technician of OP-1  inspected the refrigerator on 01.05.2014 and 02.05.2014  and replaced  compressor of  the refrigerator .  The  refrigerator was checked  in the service centre and found that  it was  not repairable  and OP-1 offered bailout  to the complainant  @ 15%  depreciation per annum  but the complainant declined  to depreciation charges. 

On merits OP admitted the purchase of refrigerator by the complainant but denied  the contents of complaint.   

The complainant  filed affidavit  of evidence  with documents  Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/7. OPs not filed affidavit.   

We have heard the counsels for parties and perused the record.

The controversy involved in the present complaint is as to whether the complainant is entitled to relief claim sought in the present complaint or not.    The dispute involved in the present case lies  in a narrow campus.  It is not in dispute that complainant purchased refrigerator from OP , it is also not in dispute  that  within a period of 4 years  the said refrigerator  started giving  trouble which was reported to the dealer where it was found  that the refrigerator  was beyond  repair ,  it is also not in dispute that OP-1 has offered  refund after deduction of 15% depreciation per annum. The order sheet  dated 07.11.2014 would show  that OP-1 was ready to settle the matter by refunding  the price of refrigerator after deduction of  depreciation  but the complainant  was not interested  in it and stated that  let the matter be disposed of on merits.  Needless to say that the complainant had   availed the service of refrigerator  for nearly 4 years,  therefore,  full price of  refrigerator  cannot be ordered.  It would be in the fitness of things if both the Ops are directed  to refund the price of the refrigerator  i.e. Rs. 21,500/- after deduction of 10% towards depreciation per annum with compensation of  Rs. 7,500/- towards inconvenience , harassment and litigation expenses.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

  Announced this___02^nd ___ day of __August_______ 2018

( K.S. MOHI )                                                    (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT                                                    MEMBER