DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.993 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  15.11.2017                                              Date of decision   :  18.06.2019

Chouhan Satvinder Singh Sisodia son of Shri Avtar Singh, aged about 37 years, resident of House No.4106, Sector 68, SAS Nagar, Mohali.  

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Whirlpool of India Limited, Customer Service, H.O. 28, N.I.T. Faridabad.

2.     Customer Care Centre, Supreme Electro Mech. Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.78, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

3.     Whirlpool of India, Plot No.376, Indl. Area, Phase-9, Mohali, Punjab.

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties        

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Ms. Savita, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Alok Bhatara, counsel for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 and 3 ex-parte.  

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               In February, 2012 complainant purchased double door refrigerator Model No.12080310. There was cooling problem in the refrigerator because it was not forming or coagulating ice in 2017.  Complainant submitted check up request to customer care centre and thereafter the engineer visited, who advised for change of compressor. On that advice, compressor was got changed on 06.02.2017 by paying Rs.9,000/-. Assurance was given to complainant as if cooling problem will not be there, but despite warranty of one year of compressor, cooling problem persisted. Thereafter complainant again registered complaint on 06.05.2017, but same was closed with remarks that customer has refused to get the repair done. It is claimed that in fact there was no refusal from the side of complainant. On 03.07.2017, complainant again got registered complaint when service was not provided to complainant by OP No.3, the service centre.  It is claimed that OP No.3 kept on running away from its duty on excuse that it cannot carry the product from home of complainant to service centre and complainant should send the product to the service centre at his own. Complainant called service centre many times, but customer care representative of the company asked for sometime to sort out the problem. Complainant after waiting for sometimes, again submitted request with the customer care and even got a call from the service dealer. Information was given as if contract of previous centre is changed and as such complainant has to bring the refrigerator to OP No.3 at his own. Complainant claimed as if change of service centre of company is an issue of company, but complainant should be provided services for the compressor as per norms of the company. Request was made for providing services through any service centre, but incharge of the service centre declined to render such services. If replacement of compressor can take place at house of complainant, then why checking of the same cannot take place within warranty period at the same site, are the assertions of complaint.  OP No.3 has not listened to repeated requests of complainant. Services were declined mainly on ground that compressor was changed on 06.02.2017 when there was contract with other service centre, but services claimed from OP No.3 subsequently on 06.05.2017. It is claimed that compressor changed by OP No.2 was defective one, but OP No.3 declined to render services to complainant. Complainant made requests many times to OP No.3 through phone calls and submitting representations on 04.07.2017 and 05.07.2017 for rendering services. Complainant claims relief in terms that OP No.3 should be directed to pay goods charges of Rs.32,000/- and OP No.3 be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment. Direction also sought to OP No.3 to pay Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses. Even direction sought to OP No.1 to take strict action against OP No.3 for bad services.

2.             In reply submitted by OP No.1 it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint not maintainable because allegations of deficiency in service are false and frivolous; complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands; complainant has no cause of action available with him and that complainant himself failed to abide by terms of warranty. Obligation of OP is to set the refrigerator right as per terms and conditions of warranty. Complaints of complainant were properly attended by engineers of authorised service station, but complainant himself refused to pay labour charges.  OP is always willing to serve the complainant provided charges for the same paid by complainant. Complainant even after knowing that the refrigerator is not under warranty has not paid the charges, despite the fact that OP ready to rectify the defects as per terms of warranty. Admittedly service engineer after visiting the refrigerator site on 06.02.2017, found that the refrigerator was not working properly and replaced the compressor with new one by charging Rs.6,950/- on account of gas filling and labour charges. It is denied that Rs.9,000/- were charged as claimed in the complaint. Admittedly complainant registered a call regarding some problems in the refrigerator, but after inspection it was found that internal seal system of the refrigerator was having some problem which need to be sorted out, but on chargeable basis. When complainant disclosed about the same, he flatly refused to get it repaired and has filed this frivolous complaint. On further registration of complaint on 03.07.2017, service engineer of OP attended the complaint and found the same problem, which occurred on 06.05.2017. This time again complainant refused to pay for the visiting charges and that is why repair could not be carried out. Answering OP or its service centre has never run away from its responsibility of providing after sale services.  Service centre of OP No.1 has never been contacted. After 03.07.2017, no complaint was got registered by complainant. Complainant despite knowing that the refrigerator is not under warranty has to pay for the service, refused to pay the same. Complainant cannot claim more than the assured services provided under warranty. Claim for goods charges of Rs.32,000/- or of compensation  for mental agony and harassment and for litigation expenses alleged to be not justified.

3.             OP No.2 and 3 are ex-parte in this case.

4.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Abhishek Paruthi, Branch Service Manager of OP No.1 alongwith document Ex.OP-1 and thereafter closed evidence.

5.             Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments of appearing counsel for parties heard and records gone through.

6.             It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that due services not rendered by OP No.3 after replacement of compressor on 06.02.2017 after charging amount of Rs.9,000/- and as such  complainant stood mentally harassed, due to which he is entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to litigation expenses. Besides, it is contended that complainant had to bear expenses of Rs.32,000/- for carrying the refrigerator in question for repair to service centre and as such complainant entitled for that amount of Rs.32,000/- also from OP No.3, the service centre of OP No.1. However, no receipt regarding payment of Rs,32,000/- as goods charges has been produced on record and as such virtually grievance of complainant remains regarding claim for compensation for mental agony and harassment and to litigation expenses.  Name of the person who transported the refrigerator for repair purposes not mentioned and nor any receipt of payment of Rs.32,000/- in that respect has been produced and as such allegations in that respect cannot be believed.

7.             After going through email Ex.C-3 dated 04.07.2017, it is made out as if complainant expressed inability to send the refrigerator to workshop of OP No.3 by paying carriage charges. No mention in Ex.C-3 or in the subsequent email Ex.C-4 of 05.07.2017 made regarding payment of Rs.32,000/- as goods charges. Such reference even not made in Ex.C-5 i.e. the only document produced on record in this respect by complainant. Being so, story regarding claim of Rs.32,000/- as goods charges is an afterthought and the same cannot be believed.

8.             Admittedly the refrigerator in question purchased in 2012 and change of compressor took place on 10.02.2017 through OP No.2, as disclosed by contents of invoice Ex.C-1. Amount of Rs.7,250/- was charged at that time from complainant by OP No.2, split of which is Rs.6,800/- on account of compressor plus gas charges plus relay OLP and Rs.450/- as labour charges. One year warranty of compressor was provided through invoice Ex.C-1 at that time. Rs.450/- were charged as labour charges. In view of providing of one year warranty by OP No.2, it is vehemently contended that OP No.3 service centre of OP No.1 was under obligation to change the compressor or remove the defects therein within warranty period of one year. However, submissions advanced by counsel for OP No.1 are to the effect that replacement of compressor took place on chargeable basis in February, 2017, but second complaint of 06.05.2017 had been attended by engineer for finding that there is defect in the internal seal system. Copy of service request Ex.C-2 dated 10.05.2017 has been produced by complainant himself for showing as if the engineer inspected the refrigerator on 10.05.2017 and not on 06.05.2017. So contents of complaint are not correct that an amount of Rs.9,000/- was charged from complainant as charges for change of compressor on 06.02.2017 or that OP No.3 refused to check compressor on 06.05.2017. Rather if we go through contents of Ex.C-2 then it is made out as if nothing was charged for gas charges on 10.05.2017, though the engineer inspected the refrigerator on that date. Rather contents of Ex.OP-1 establishes as if complaint of 06.05.2017 of complainant even was attended by service engineer of OP No.1. Though in the complaint it is mentioned that on registration of complaint on 03.07.2017, OP No.3 refused to render services by claiming that product should be sent at the service centre, but in reply it is claimed as if the service engineer again attended the complaint and after checking the refrigerator found as if there is problem of internal seal system. That problem of internal seal system in fact was found on 06.05.2017 as per contents of written reply by OP No.1 and the same could have been sorted out on chargeable basis, but complainant refused to pay those charges and that is why it is claimed as if this frivolous complaint has been filed. Though complainant has not produced any record of date 03.07.2017, but OP No.1 has produced service history sheet of the refrigerator in question as Ex.OP-1.  Perusal of Ex.OP-1 reveals that request of complainant was closed after change of compressor on 06.02.2017. Further perusal of Ex.OP-1 reveals as if on 06.05.2017 complainant refused to get the repair work done, when complaint was lodged that the compressor was not working properly. However, actual work required to be done on 06.05.2017 was regarding problem of internal seal system as per report of engineer. Problem of internal seal system is quite different than that of problem of compressor. It is not the assertion of the customer that is to prevail, but it is the findings of engineer checking the refrigerator which is to prevail, more so when complainant has not produced any report of expert for establishing that problem in the refrigerator on 06.05.2017 was not of internal seal system, but of compressor. As the internal seal system problem is different than that of problem of compressor and as such in view of the fact that the refrigerator was not under warranty period, certainly complainant was bound to pay for removal of problem of internal seal system. Perusal of Ex.OP-1 reveals that though visiting charges were demanded, but complainant refused to pay the same and as such certainly fault lay with complainant in not getting the refrigerator repaired on payment basis on 06.05.2017.

9.             Perusal of Ex.OP-1 further reveals that on registration of complaint on 03.07.2017 complainant refused to pay visiting charges, despite the fact that engineer again found the problem of internal seal system. This time again the complainant claimed as if problem is of non working of compressor. However, actual work required to be done was with respect to problem of internal seal system and as such on account of refusal by complainant to pay visiting charges, problem of internal seal system found on 06.05.2017 and 03.07.2017 could not be removed. As the refrigerator was out of warranty on 06.05.2017 and 03.07.2017 and the engineer did not found problem in the compressor, but in the internal seal system on both the visits, and as such complainant was bound to pay for availing those services. However, complainant refused to pay those charges and as such fault lay with complainant.

10.           After going through relief clause of complaint, it is made out as if main relief is claimed against OP No.3, not only regarding payment of goods charges of Rs.32,000/-, but even of compensation for mental agony and harassment and of litigation expenses. Those charges are claimed despite the fact that OP No.1 sent service engineers to complainant on 06.05.2017 and 03.07.2017 for rendering services. History sheet by Ex.OP-1 and service request Ex.C-2 shows as if complaints were lodged by way of getting registration of the same and that fact is virtually pleaded in Para No.3 (D) and (E) of the complaint. If the complaints were lodged with the manufacturer i.e. OP No.1, then on sending of engineer for doing needful, fault with OP No.3 cannot be found, more so when as per claim of complainant himself, OP No.3 refused to render service because it remained no longer the authorised service centre of OP No.1. Being so, directions against OP No.3 are sought virtually without any basis, may be for harassing him. This Forum has no power to call OP No.1, the manufacturer, to take strict action against OP No.3 the alleged service centre for bad services, when plea in the written statement submitted by OP No.1 has been taken that service centre of OP No.1 has never been contacted by complainant. Disciplinary action by manufacturer against its agent can be taken by it as per terms and conditions of contract of agency and as such Consumer Forum has no power to call OP No.1 to take disciplinary or strict action against OP No.3, the alleged service centre of OP No.1, more so when deficiency in service on part of OP No.1 even not established because he responded to the registered complaints by sending engineers on two occasions, but fault lay with complainant in not paying the visiting charges for removing the defects in the internal seal system of the refrigerator when it was not under warranty. Counsel for OP No.1 vehemently contends that OP No.1 still ready to offer services, but on chargeable basis and as such OP No.1 has not denied rendering of due services. Being so, it is not a case of deficiency in service on part of OPs and as such complaint merits dismissal, but without any order as to costs.

11.           As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

June 18, 2019

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member