Haryana

Jind

CC/15/101

Sh. Rohtash Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirlpool Of Indai And M/S Ahuja Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh J.S. Tanwar

08 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 94 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 23.7.2015
   Date of final order: 8.7.2016

Rohtash Kumar son of Mukhtair Singh r/o 23, HSIIDC, Jind (Haryana).

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Whirlpool of India limited plot no.40, sector44, Gurgaon-122002(Haryana) through its MD/Authorized signatory.
M/s Ahuja Electronics, Jhanj gate, Shiv Chowk, Jind through its partner/proprietor Sanjay son of Govind Ram.

                                                          …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. J.S. Tanwar Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Rahul Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
          Sh. R.K. Chugh Adv. for opposite party No.2.
          (defence already struck-off)
          
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased Whirlpool Split Air conditioner 1.5 Ton for a sum of Rs.28,500/- vide bill No.308 dated 22.7.2014 from opposite party No.2. The above said air conditioner was having a guarantee of one year plus five years. Only after a month, the Air Conditioner 
        Rohtash Kumar Vs. Whirlpool of India etc.
                     …2…  
developed some technical defect and started giving problem of stopped cooling.  The complainant had registered complaint with the opposite parties through mobile on toll free No.018060008558 on 3.10.2014, the mechanic of the opposite party had attended the complaint after many days and thereafter the AC started giving some cooling but cooling was not upto the mark. Thereafter he again made complaints on 31.3.2015,18.5.2015 and 22.5.2015 on toll free number. The mechanic of the opposite parties visited the complainant to attend the complaint one or twice but the defects of the AC could not be cured and defects in the AC remained the same. Thereafter, the complainant made several complaint regarding defects of AC to the opposite parties but the defects  could not be removed by the opposite parties. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the AC with new one or to pay the cost of AC i.e. Rs.28,500/-. It is further directed  to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.   Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that  the Service Engineer of the opposite party visited the house of complainant  and on inspection, he noticed cement and threads in the condenser. It was simply negligence on the part of the complainant as well as misuse of 
        Rohtash Kumar Vs. Whirlpool of India etc.
                     …3…  
the product. Misuse and negligence are not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty. It was the complainant who himself failed to take proper care of the product in question and trying to cook a false story to extract illegitimate money from the answering opposite party. The complainant has not filed any documentary evidence or report of any expert from the approved laboratory in his support of his allegation in the complaint regarding cause of defect in the Split Air Conditioner. In the absence of the authentic report the allegation of the complainant are baseless. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. Defence of opposite party No.2 already been struck off vide order of this Forum dated 12.1.2016. 
3.    In   evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copy of  cash memo Ex. C-2, statement of Anil Kumar, Mechanic Ex. C-3 and  copy of document Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.1 has not produced any evidence despite last opportunity. Hence, the evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed  by this Forum vide order dated 11.4.2016.  
4.    We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one Spilt AC of the Whirlpool Company on 22.7.2014 and after 2/3 months the AC started giving problem of cooling and the matter was reported to the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 has failed to rectify the defect and demanded charges for 

        Rohtash Kumar Vs. Whirlpool of India etc.
                     …4…  
rectifying the defect, however, the AC in question have  warranty of one year. 
5.    On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.1 argued that as and when any complaint was received from the complainant the same was promptly attended to the satisfaction of the complainant. The allegations leveled by the complainant are totally  fabricated one. The complainant has made an complaint on 19.6.2015 and on the complaint of the complainant the Engineer of the Company has visited at the house of the complainant and checked the AC in question and found that cement and threads was found in the condenser in the AC, which is negligence on the part of the complainant and misuse of the complainant and as per terms and conditions of the warranty the repair of the AC is on chargeable basis but the complainant has refused to pay the charges and started this unnecessary litigation. 
6.    At the very out set it is admitted that the AC in question having a warranty of one year plus five years warranty of compressor from its purchase. The fourth most question arises before us whether the AC in question become defective due to the negligence of the complainant or not?  From the perusal of the report of expert/mechanic Sh. Anil Kumar Ex. C-3 who after checking the AC in question observe that “the AC after some time not cooling to the mark and as such there is a some technical defects in the AC.” The objection of the opposite parties is that as per report of the mechanic the AC in question was mishandled and misuse because a cement and threads are found in the condenser of the AC, which is not covered under the terms and 
        Rohtash Kumar Vs. Whirlpool of India etc.
                     …5…  
conditions of the warranty clause.  The version of the opposite party No.1 is not believable because the opposite party No.1 has failed to file any document/affidavit of their engineer alleging therein that the AC in question was misused due to the negligency of the complainant and complainant refused to repair the same. The report of mechanic Ex. C-3  is authentic one because he is a trained mechanic  and opposite party No.1 company has also gave an certificate regarding attending the training programme of the company. Hence, the version of the complainant is believable that the AC having some technical defects. We are of the view that it is the prime duty of the service centre/company to rectify the problems arose in the AC but they did not do so. 
7.    Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that  deficiency in service is established  on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to  rectify the defects of the AC of the complainant by way of changing any parts/compressor if required free of cost and to the satisfaction of the complainant. The order be complianced within 30 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 8.7.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind
        Rohtash Kumar Vs. Whirlpool of India etc.                    

Present:  Sh. J.S. Tanwar Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Rahul Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
          Sh. R.K. Chugh Adv. for opposite party No.2.
          (defence already struck-off)

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  8.7.2016