DATE OF FILING : 23.12.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 12.03.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 05.10.2015.
Dr. Chandan Kumar Mahato,
son of Sri Ram Manohar Mahato,
flat no. 101, 3 / 4, Mahendra Bagchi Road, P.O. & P.S. Bally,
Howrah 711 201. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. Whirlpool of India Limited,
A4, Mide, Ranjangaon, Taluka, Shirur,
District Pune, Maharastra,
PIN 419204.
2. The Manager,
Whirlpool of India Limited,
Kolkata Regional Office at
8th & 11th floor, Shantiniketan Building,
opposite British Council, Camac Street,
Kolkata 700017.
3. Great Eastern Trading Co.
352, G.T. Road, Salkia, opposite Pathak Industry,
Howrah 6.
4. Prism Services ( Whirlpoor authorized service centre ),
389, G.T. Road, Bally Bazar,
Howrah 711201. ……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIS.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- The instant case was filed by petitioner, Dr. Chandan Kumar Mahato, U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the o.ps., Whirlpool of India Limited & three others, wherein the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the o.ps. to return of the purchase money of the ‘R.O. Water Purifier’ being Rs. 10,043.67 p. with interest till realization and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and also cost of the proceedings.
- The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one R.O. Water Purifier of Whirlpool 5200 RS Pure Fresh DLX from the shop of o.p. no. 3, Great Eastern Trading Company, on 20.07.2013 on payment of Rs. 10,043.67 p. and after installation of the said purifier the same worked very well for 3 / 4 months and then stopped working. The petitioner came to the o.p. no. 4, Prism Services ( authorized service centre of Whirlpool ) for about 5/6 times and the o.p. no. 4 changed two filters being sedimentation filter and R.O. Filter as per advice of their engineer and even after change of the A.M.C. on payment of extra charge of Rs. 4,075/- the problem was not solved and the purifier stopped after every 1 / 2 weeks interval. On 29.04.2014 the petitioner complained for the 5th times and the o.p. no. 4 sent engineer on 30.4.2014 who tested the machine and told the petitioner that there is need to install one more pre filter to get purified water. The petitioner purchased already one cover for Rs. 450/- for protection of machine from dust and told the o.p. no. 4 that he would not purchase any more as the product was during the warranty period. Later on the o.p. no. 4 behaved rudely with the petitioner. The petitioner sent mail on 02.5.2014 and on 05.05.2014 sent a letter to the o.ps. requesting them to change a new machine but they kept silent and finding no other alternative filed this case for the deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.
3. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 being the Whirlpool of India Limited and the Manager, Whirlpool of India Limited, Kolkata Regional Office, contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made in the petition and submitted that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the petitioner and further submitted that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are manufacturers of consumer durable goods like refrigerator, washing machine, water purifier, micro oven and the o.p. no. 3 is the dealer of such goods and the o.p. no. 4 is the service centre. They further submitted that the petitioner purchased the water purifier on 20.07.2013 from o.p. no. 3 and he lodged complaint that it was working properly and service engineer of o.p. no. 4 attended the machine and transpired that the R.O. Membrane needs to be changed and the same was accordingly done. The R.O. Membrane is not covered by warranty terms and conditions and it can be replaced on payment of costs. The petitioner appeared for replacement before Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, who directed for replacement of R.O. Membrane, free of costs, and also directed that other parts found defective then the same would be replaced on payment of costs. In the instant case the R.O. Membrane and sediment filter needs replacement and the o.ps. are ready and willing to replace the same R.O. Membrane and sediment filter upon payment of costs. Thus the present petition is not a bonafide one and be dismissed.
4. The o.p. no. 3 though did not file written version yet filed B.N.A. and the case is heard ex parte against it.
5. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. All the issues aretaken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. This Forum heard the ld. counsels of both sides and perused the written argument filed by them. On scrutiny of the complaint petition it is noticed that the petitioner purchased the water filter on 20.7.2013 and he went on complaining for 4/5 times in July and November, 2013 and February and March, 2014 and the filters were changed but the service of the water purifier was not satisfactory. The petitioner approached the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices within the warranty period i.e., on 02.07.2014 but his problem was not solved and he approached the Forum. It is noticed from the documents filed by the petitioner that he purchased the water purifier from the o.p. no. 3, Great Eastern TradingCompany, on 20.07.2013 along with washing machine, LCD TV and others and he went to the service centre for a good number of times only for the water purifier and not for the washing machine and T.V. It is noticed from the warranty registration card that the warranty for water purifier was for one year from the date of original purchase and the same is limited to only R.O. Membrane. It is also noticed from the warranty terms and condition that the warranty period would not be extended and the warranty is available during the original warranty period i.e., one year. The petitioner also filed other documents like the service requests as well as ‘email’ sent to the o.p. no. 2 informing him that the test of water was like a tap water and further requested the o.p. no. 2 to replace the water purifier as soon as possible and then he filed this case praying for refund of the purchase money of the water purifier. The o.ps. on the other hand simply submitted that they have changed the parts and now they can change the R.O. Membrane only and the other parts be purchased by the petitioner. From the acts and conducts of the petitioner as well as the o.ps. it is noticed that the water purifier got stopped for a good number of times and the engineer of o.p. no. 4 had to replace the parts and even then it did not work properly and thus it is the duty of the manufacturer to replace the machine or to pay the purchase money to the petitioner as prayed for before this Forum when the major and vital parts of a machine becomes defective within months of its running and such defects point to the structural defects of the machine and cane be termed as manufacturing defect. It is clear from the facts of the case that even after testing the machine for a number of times the engineer could not resolve the defects which amounted to major defects in the machine and thus the petitioner is entitled to the purchase money of the water purifier as well as compensation and cost of proceeding.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 654 of 2014 ( HDF 654 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and ex parte without costs against the o.p. no. 4 and dismissed on contest against the o.p. no. 3 without cost.
The petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for and the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are directed to refund the purchase money of the petitioner for water purifier amounting to Rs. 10,043.67 p. with interest @ 9% from the date of purchase till realization and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the hardships caused to a medical practitioner and for wasting of his valuable time and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order failing the whole amount would further carry interest @ 9% p.a. after the expiry of the stipulated period and if the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 failed to comply the order then the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
