Haryana

Karnal

CC/57/2015

Muddit Arora S/o K.K. Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mukul Sharma

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                  Complaint No.57 of 2015

                                                                  Date of instt.: 27.03.2015

                                                                   Date of decision: 26.02.2016

 

Mudit Arora son of Sh.K.K.Arora, 57 Jernally Colony, Karnal.                                                                                          

                                                      ………..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

1.Whirlpool of India Limited Consumer Service H.O.28, NIT, Faridabad.

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

 

                                                ……… Opposite Parties.

                    Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.Mukul Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Mukesh Sharma Advocate for Opposite Party no.2.

                   Opposite Party no.1 ex parte.

 

ORDER:

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased Whirlpool Refrigerator  Model No.12070 Serial No.INA100500508 from Paras Traders, shop No.6, Model Town, Karnal, the authorized dealer of the company, for a sum of Rs.21200/- vide bill dated 31.3.2010. Complete warranty of five years was provided for the said refrigerator.After few days problems   of compressor, drain pipe, cooling and noise started. He lodged complaint with the customer care vide complaint No.HR0613006764 on 17.6.2013.   Engineer of Opposite Party visited his house and the service centre replaced the compressor. However,  the problem was not solved and after one month, the same  problem started. He approached the service centre on 20.7.2013.  Service Centre again repaired the refrigerator. After some time, in the month of February, 2014 , he faced the same problem and asked the Opposite Parties to replace the refrigerator or refund the price of the same as they were unable to  remove the defects. The service Centre  again repaired the refrigerator and assured that there would not be any problem in future, but again the problem started. He made complaint No.  H031500595 asking the  Opposite Parties to replace the refrigerator or refund the price of the same as the same could not be repaired on account of manufacturing defect.  In February and March, 2015, he approached the dealer and requested for replacement of the same but the dealer  refused to do so. Therefore, he again approached the Opposite Parties  and was told by the Opposite Party no.2  that refrigerator could not  be repaired as the same was having manufacturing defect. When he asked  for replacement of the same, in warranty period, the Opposite Parties refused to accede to his request, which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties,  due to which he suffered mental pain and agony apart from financial loss. 

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties.  None put into appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party no.1 despite service through registered post. Therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against Opposite Party no.1, vide order dated 18.5.2015.

 

3.                The Opposite Party no.2 put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. The factum of purchase of the refrigerator in question by the complainant has not been disputed. It has been submitted that compressor of the refrigerator was replaced once. Warranty was for one year comprehensive and additional four years for compressor.  The Opposite Party no.2 strictly followed the warranty terms and there was not even a single act of omission on its part, which could even remotely be termed as deficiency in services. The complainant lodged the first complaint on 17.6.2013 after three years of uninterrupted usage of the refrigerator and the said complaint was promptly addressed by the service engineer and compressor was replaced. The service engineer never informed the complainant that there was manufacturing defect  in the refrigerator. There was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties. The present complaint is an abuse of the process of law,  baseless and frivolous. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically.

 

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

 

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party no.2, affidavit of  Mujeebur Rahman  Branch Service Manager Ex.O1 has been tendered.

.                 

6.                    We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

7.                The complainant purchased one  refrigerator for Rs.21200/- on 31.3.2010  vide bill Ex.C1. Admittedly, he lodged the complaint regarding the problem of  his refrigerator to the Opposite Parties on 17.6.2013. The compressor was replaced and other defects were removed as is evident from service request Ex.C2. It has also been alleged by the complainant that  the same  problem started in the refrigerator and he complained to the Opposite Parties in February 2014, vide complaint No.HO31500595 and at that  time he was told by the Opposite Parties that there was manufacturing defect, which could not  be removed. At the end of the complaint, he also mentioned the complaint numbers of the complaint  made on 24.3.2015 and 26.3.2015.The complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A reiterated the allegations made in the complaint.

 

8.                The Opposite Party no.2 admitted about the problem in the refrigerator and replacement of the compressor on 17.6.2013. It is admitted fact that warranty of compressor was for five years. The complainant has made complaints even after 17.6.2013 at customer care centre and number of complaints mentioned by him in the complaint as well as in the affidavit. Even on 17.6.2013 while accepting the refrigerator, he was not satisfied with the repairs as is clear from Ex.C2. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant regarding the fact that his refrigerator was not functioning properly and the compressor was giving problem. The Opposite Parties neither repaired the refrigerator nor it was replaced despite the complaints made by the complainant at customer care centre.  Such acts and conduct on the part of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in services.

 

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to repair the refrigerator of the complainant and if the same is not repairable, the Opposite Parties shall replace the same. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.3300/- for the mental agony and pain caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Parties  shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:26.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.Mukul Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Mukesh Sharma Advocate for Opposite Party no.2.

                   Opposite Party no.1 ex parte.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:26.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.