Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/488/2016

Sanjeev Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirlpool of India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	488/2016
Date of Institution	:	14.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	04/01/2017

 

                                       

                                               

Sanjeev Singla s/o Sh.Parshotam Singla r/o H.No.3311, 1^st Floor, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Whirlpool of India Ltd., A-8, Vatalik, USO Road, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 through its M.D.

 

2.     Whirlpool Customer Care Centre, Plot No.78, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh -160002 through its Manager.

 

3.     M/s Nehra Refrigeration, Cinema Road, Sirhind Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Complainant in person.

                   Ms. Geeta Gulati, Adv. for OPs No.1 and 2.

                   OP No.3 exprate.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In nutshell, the complainant purchased a single door refrigerator (Model-Fusion Maxigerator) from OP No.3 in the year 2011-12, having warranty of one year over the product and he was informed by OP No.3 even after the warranty period, the product will be repaired on charge basis. . However, the original bill was lost. It has further been averred that a defect of automatic defrosting (6^th sense) occurred in the refrigerator in June, 2015 and he lodged the complaint with the OPs.  The mechanic of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant on 06.06.2015 and allegedly affixed the problem by replacing the defective part with a makeshift part by charging Rs.1450/-.  However, the changed part did not work properly and the auto defrosting of the refrigerator did not work even after so called repair. On his complaint with the OP on 01.07.2015, the mechanic visited the premises and the complainant came to know that the changed part belongs to some other model and it was fitted as a makeshift arrangement. The mechanic of the OPs expressed his inability to replace it with proper part due to lack of availability of that particular part but promised that the same will be fitted as and when the same is made available to him by the OPs. It has further been averred that the mechanic took away the damaged part with him so that he could arrange the identical/proper.   It has further been averred that the complainant made repeated requests to the OPs to replace the makeshift part with the proper part but to no effect. It has also served a legal notice dated 02.06.2016 upon the OPs but the same also failed to yield any result. It has further been averred that during the process, he suffered the loss of articles lying in the refrigerator.         Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 took the preliminary object that the compliant is not maintainable because the refrigerator in question was purchased on 15.06.2010, having one year comprehensive warranty and additional four year warranty for compressor. However, at the time of filing the complaint before this Forum, the refrigerator was out of warranty.  It has further been pleaded that the complaint was filed on 04.06.2015 and at the relevant time the product was not covered under the warranty as the same was only for the compressor and therefore, the service engineer of the OP rectified the defect in the product on 06.06.2015 which was related to the PCB and the complainant was charged for the visit of the engineer and the part replaced.  It has further been pleaded that on receipt of the complaint on 01.07.2015, the service engineer of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant but he was not present at the given address and thereafter there was no response from the complainant and as such the same was closed. Thereafter, the complainant made the complaint on 20.08.2016 with the OPs and the same was redressed on the same day by simply adjusting the chiller trey and the service engineer did not find any problem with the functioning of the refrigerator.  The complainant signed the job sheet dated 20.08.2016 and gave satisfaction letter dated 22.08.2016 after observing the refrigerator for two days.   It has further been pleaded that on inspection of the refrigerator in the year 2016, no defect found. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made
3.         Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Party No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.08.2016.
4.         We have heard the complainant, in person, learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         It is apposite to mention here that during the course of arguments i.e. 20.12.2016, the complainant submitted that OPs No.1 and 2 have replaced the PCB of the refrigerator. He further submitted that he be awarded compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment undergone by him.
6.         The grievance of the complainant has been redressed by OPs No.1 and 2 only after filing of the instant complaint before this Forum and, therefore, we are of the considered that he  is required to be compensated for the harassment and mental agony undergone by him. Had OPs No.1 and 2 redressed the genuine grievance of the complainant before filing of the complaint then the position certainly would have been different but they failed to do so.  However, keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,000/-.
7.         For the reasons recoded above, the complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs No.1 & 2 to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  This order be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its realization.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

04/01/2017                                                                        sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER