In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 168 / 2007.
1) Sri M. Mukherjee,
11/F, Selimpur Bye Lane, Dhakuria, Kolkata-31. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Whirlpool of India Limited,
8, Camac Street, Santiniketan Building, 9th Fl., Room-4, Kol-17.
2) Whirlpool Home Care Consumer Cell,
Whirlpool of India Ltd., Customer Services Head Office,
28, NIT / Faridabad, Pin-121001. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member
Order No. 3 7 Dated 2 0 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 2 .
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by complainant M. Mukherjee against the o.ps. Whirlpool of India Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased one Whirlpool automatic washing machine on 14.1.2000 having brand name and no. Whirlpool Europa AWM 312, chassis no.9848000129/42P01 and complainant happens to be a user of the said company’s Home Care Plan having application no.HPO 1228655 and it is duly registered by latest Home Care Plan scheduled to be expired on 29.5.07. and during the last two years the timer of the machine was causing problem and inconvenience and complainant lodged complaint and engineer on duty first reported the problem on 11.9.04 vide job sheet no.117410 and it has been agitated by the complainant that for the last few months his telephonic calls were not received by o.p. and o.p. from 5.9.06 stopped the services promised to the complainant although complainant’s Home Care Plan contracted was due for renewal on 29.5.07. Hence the instant case lodged by the complainant with a prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.1 had entered its appearance by filing w/v denying all the material allegations labeled against it and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. sent engineer after making complaint by the complainant and the said engineer could not remove all the defects and the said machine went on causing problem and inconvenience to the complainant and despite repeated requests to remove the defects o.ps. did not remove the defects not replaced a new machine. Although complainant had valid Home Care Plan insurance during the relevant period and as such, we are of the view that the o.ps. had sufficient deficiency on their part being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to repair the machine in question free from any defect and/or to replace the same by new machine since at the relevant point of time the machine was purchased under valid Home Care Plan scheme which was scheduled to expired on 29.5.07 although the complainant purchased the said machine on 14.1.2000 and complainant was never a defaulter in the matter of making premium etc. as is apparent from the face of record itself within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the purchase sum of the said machine till the date of compliance of this order. O.p. is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till the date of realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-____ ______Sd-_______
MEMBER PRESIDENT
