- Debashis Chakraborty,
Daffodil Greens,
17, Chandi Ghosh Road, Flat B2C
P.S. Regent Park, Kolkata-40. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Whirlpool of India Ltd.
8, Camac Street, Shantiniketan Building,
11th Floor, Room No.1A,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17.
- Whirlpool of India Ltd.
40, Whirlpool House, Sector 44,
Plot No.40, P.S. Gurgaon,
Gurgaon – 122002, Hariyana.
- Whirlpool of India Ltd.
A-4, MIDC, Ranjangaon, Taluka, Shirur,
Dist. Pune, P.S. Pune,
Maharashtra – 419204.
- Mr. Chet Ram Soni,
Deputy Manager,
Whirlpool of India Ltd.
8, Camac Street, Shantiniketan Building,
11th Floor, Room No.1A,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 18 Dated 29-06-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased one Whirlpool Air Conditioner (Window Type) on 24.4.09 from M/s Sound of Music, Kolkata-16. The machine was running absolutely perfect till 2013. In the month of April 2013 complainant contacted with Whirlpool of India Ltd. for one routine service. Complainant wanted for a routine wet servicing of the said machine at his own cost. The service call was attended by engineer of Penguin Services, the authorized service dealer of o.ps. on 6.4.13. The said engineer of the service centre came alone for the purpose of wet cleaning of the air-conditioner in question. The service engineer cleaned the said machine under heavy shower without covering delicate power and motor related spares inside the machine. After installation the machine started with huge abnormal sound. Being highly dissatisfied on their service complainant had to lodge another complaint on 13.4.13 vide call no.008797. Again the representative of o.ps’ service center visited the complainant’s residence but the problem had not been solved. Accordingly, complainant wrote his remark on the service report. Complainant has alleged in his petition that the machine was damaged during wet service. Complainant sent a letter to o.p. no.1 informing his grievances. In reply dt.11.6.13 o.p. no.1 offered the complainant the replacement of the blower motor for which complainant had to spend Rs.4000/-. Complainant tried to inform the o.ps. that his machine was completely O.K. before the wet service. Therefore the application praying for replacement of damaged and noisy spares (fan bearing / motor) or any other parts, if any, of the A.C. machine in question along with compensation and cost.
O.ps. appeared before the Forum and filed their w/v. In their w/v o.ps. denied all the material allegations
Interalia stated that no specific allegation had been made out by the complainant against the o.ps. Complainant had used the said machine with good cooling performance till the year 2013. The service call was attended by the service engineer of Penguin Services, who, however has not been made a party to the instant case. The alleged defect is not a manufacturing defect and the machine is out of warranty and not under any AMC. However, as a matter of goodwill o.ps. seek to inspect the alleged defect, if any, of the said machine and repair the same by changing the motor at their cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. O.ps. have alleged that complainant has not made Penguin Service as a party. We find from the document that Penguin Service is authorized service centre of o.ps. Complainant had approached the o.ps. for servicing and o.ps. have sent the engineer through their service centre i.e. Penguin Service. So, there is no question of mis joinder or non joinder of party for not making Penguin Service as a party.
It is admitted fact that the A.C. machine was purchased by complainant in the year 2009 and complainant wanted a service from o.ps. in the year 2013 for proper running of the machine at his own cost. Immediately after the service the problem regarding heavy noise from the said machine cropped up. In their w/v o.ps. prayed for inspection of the said machine and repair the same at their own cost to keep their goodwill. Hence, we find no denial from the o.ps. that the said machine is not functioning properly. Therefore, complainant has substantiated his case and is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to replace the damaged and noisy spares of the A.C. machine in question by new Whirlpool make spare parts at their own cost and are further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
