Haryana

Karnal

CC/20/2016

Mahinder Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirlpool Of India Limited Consumer Service - Opp.Party(s)

Muddit Arora

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.20 of 2016

                                                             Date of instt.: 18.01.2016

                                                               Date of decision:12.06.2017

 

Mahinder Sharma son of Mohan Lal Sharma, V.P.O. Rasina, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Whirlpool of India Limited consumer service H.O. 28, N.I.T. Faridabad.

2. Service Center Whirlpool of India Limited C-7, Arjun Nagar, Near Guru Nanak Public School Karnal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Muddit Arora Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Alok Batra Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Opposite party no.2 already exparte.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a Whirlpool washing machine model no.14395 sr. no. SDP-INF 133713462 from Paras Traders Model Town, Main Market Karnal, who was authorized dealer of company/manufacturer i.e. opposite party no.1, vide invoice no.5544 dated 20.11.2013 ,for an amount of Rs.21,000/-, with two years warranty for complete washing machine and eight years warranty on prime mover parts. After sometime the washing machine started giving trouble. The motor of machine started getting cut out while moving and the control panel of machine was gone out of order i.e. commands given not functioning.  The complainant visited the office of opposite party no.2 i.e. service centre on 30.1.2015 and made complaint regarding defect of the machine. The service engineer of opposite party no.2 visited his premises and checked the machine and told him that there was a major defect in the motor of machine and control panel was also out of order for some internal problem. The service engineer repaired the machine, but after sometime the machine again started giving problems. He again contacted the opposite party no.2 on 3.11.2015, vide complaint no.HR081500469. The service engineer again checked the machine and told that there was major problem in the machine and the same was not repairable. He requested the opposite parties to replace the said defective washing machine with new one or to pay the cost of the washing machine, but opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of complainant, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to his request. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused him mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is baseless, malafide and an abuse of process of law and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the washing machine in question purchased by the complainant was with two years warranty. Each and every call for maintenance or any other necessary repair was properly attended by the authorized service centre. The complaint no.HR1015006519 dated 30.10.2015 was properly attended and necessary adjustments were made to  make the machine workingand other complaint no.HR0815004696 on 17.8.2015 was closed by replacing the defective part in the machine. There was no manufacturing defect in the washing machine. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and C2 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Mujeebur Rehman Ex.OP1 has only been tendered.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant had purchased one washing machine on 20.11.2013. Opposite party no.1 was the manufacturer of the said Washing Machine. This fact has not been disputed that the complainant made complaints regarding defects in the Washing Machine. However, the opposite parties have submitted that their Service Engineer visited the residence of the complainant and removed the defects. As per allegations of the complainant, the defects could not be removed and Service Engineer told him that there was manufacturing defect in the washing machine.

7.                The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and reiterated his allegations made in the complaint. Even the opposite parties have admitted the factum of making complaints by the complainant regarding defects in the washing machine on 17.8.2015 and 30.10.2015. The opposite parties have not produced any job sheet in order to establish that the defects were completely removed, whereas the complainant has alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine and even the service engineer told him that the same was not repairable. Under such facts and circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the version putforth by the complainant. The defects occurred in the washing machine of the complainant within the warranty period. Therefore, the opposite parties were bound to remove the defects and if the same were not repairable then replace the washing machine, but opposite parties have failed to prove that the defects were removed, therefore, not replacing the washing machine by the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to replace the washing machine in question of the complainant with new one of the same value or to pay the cost of the washing machine. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 12.06.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                             (Veena Rani)          (Anil Sharma)

                               Member                   Member