THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 2015
Date of Institution : 8.1.2015
Date of Decision : 08.09.2015
ASI Jaipal Singh resident of 67, BN BSF, Qtr.No. Type 2-61, Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Whirlpool of India Limited ,Plot No. 40, Sector 44, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Director/Principal Officer
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite party : Sh. A.S.Grover,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
-2-
1 Present complaint has been filed by Jaipal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Whirpool washing machine from Metro Cash & Carry India, Amritsar manufactured by opposite party on 11.12.2013 for a sum of Rs. 24300/- with two years warranty. According to the complainant after one month of the purchase of the machine, it started giving problems . The complainant lodged a complaint on Toll Free number of opposite party, who assured the complainant that they would send their mechanic for setting right the defects/problems of the said machine and complaint No.CH 01114009851 Code No. 213 was issued to the complainant. On this complaint, engineer of the opposite party came to the premises of the complainant and repaired the washing machine. After some time it again stopped working properly. The complainant again lodged complaints to the opposite party vide complaint Nos. CH 0714012011 Code 606, CH1114063534 Code No. 0183 and CH 111301416 Code No. 102 and it was only after 4th complaint lodged by the complainant that the engineer of the opposite party again came to the premises of the complainant and repaired the machine. However, on 20.10.2014 during the rinsing of clothes the said machine blasted, as a result of which the son of the complainant suffered injuries and was medically treated at BSF Hospital . After this incident the complainant lodged complaint vide No. CH 1014006968 but there was no response from the opposite party. The complainant also sent complaint to Chandigarh as well as Gurgaon office of the opposite party. But even then the opposite party did not repair the washing machine . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the defective washing machine with new one or in the alternative to refund the price thereof to the tune of Rs. 24300/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 70,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that whenever any fault occurs in the product, then the opposite party repairs the defective part or if not repairable , then replaced the defective part unless it is proved that the entire product is not repairable as is not liable to replace the product with new one. It was submitted that complainant mentioned various complaint numbers in the present complaint but did not mention the single date of registering of complaint. The complainant has mentioned one complaint No. CH 01114009851 and the same was lodged with the opposite party on 28.1.2014 with the problem showing PE error and that was due to some electricity problem and the adjustment was done by the service engineer and same was closed on 1.2.2014. It was denied that after some time the machine again stopped working properly. Whenever the complaint was lodged by the complainant, the same was attended by the service engineer . It was denied that on 20.10.2014 during the rinsing of clothes, the said machine was blasted very badly. It was rather submitted that complainant had lodged complaint on 20.10.2014 and the same was attended by the service engineer and it came to the notice of the service engineer that the lid was broken and the same fact was told to complainant that the machine is absolutely alright and only lid was broken. As the lid was a plastic part and plastic parts does not fall within the purview of warranty terms and conditions. But inspite of that opposite party was ready to replace the same free of cost . But the complainant refused to get the washing machine repaired. In this regard opposite party has also written letter dated 11.11.2014but the complainant did not allow the opposite party to repair the machine. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complain was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Deepak Kumar Chugh Ex.OP1/1, copy of letter dated 11.11.2014 Ex.OP1/2, copy of call intervention details Ex.OP1/3.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite party.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant purchased Whirlpool washing machine manufactured by opposite party on 11.12.2013 vide invoice Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 24300/- with warranty of two year. The complainant alleges that after one month of purchase, the said washing machine started giving problems and was not working properly. The complainant lodged complaint on Toll Free number of opposite party No.2 , who assured the complainant that they would sent their mechanic for setting right the defects/problems in the said machine. Then engineer of the opposite arty came to the house of the complainant and repaired the machine. But after sometime it again stopped working properly. The complainant again lodged complaint to the opposite party vide complaint Nos. CH 0714012011 Code 606, CH1114063534 Code No. 0183 and CH 111301416 Code No. 102. After so many complaints, engineer of the opposite party came to the house of the complainant and repaired the machine. Thereafter on 20.10.2014 during the rinsing of clothes the said machine blasted, as a result of which the son of he complainant suffered injuries and was medically treated at BSF Hospital . After this incident the complainant lodged complaint vide No. CH 1014006968 but there was no response from the opposite party. The complainant also sent complaint to Chandigarh as well as Gurgaon office of the opposite party. But even then the opposite party did not repair the washing machine . The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that whenever any fault occurs in the product, then the opposite party repairs the defective part or if not repairable , then replaced the defective part unless it is proved that the entire product is not repairable. Opposite party is not liable to replace the product with new one. Opposite party submitted that complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party on 28.1.2014 with the problem showing PE error which was due to some electric problem and the adjustment was done by the service engineer and that complaint was closed on 1.2.2014. Whenever the complainant lodged any complaint with the opposite party the same was attended by the service engineer and the washing machine of the complainant was set right. Opposite party admitted that complainant lodged complaint on 28.7.2014, 10.11.2014 and 28.11.2014. The complainant lodged complaint No. CH 1014006968 on 20.10.2014 which was attended by the service engineer , who found that the lid of the washing machine was broken and this fact was brought to the notice of the complainant. The lid was a plastic part and the plastic part does not fall within the purview of warranty terms and conditions . But inspite of that opposite party was ready to replace the same free of cost . But the complainant refused to get the washing machine repaired. In this regard opposite party has also written letter dated 11.11.2014 Ex.OP1/2 but the complainant did not allow the opposite party to repair the machine. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Whirlpool washing machine manufactured by opposite party on 11.12.2013 for a sum of Rs. 24300/- vide invoice Ex.C-2. Some minor problem occurred in the machine of the complainant and the complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party which were duly attended by the engineer of the opposite party and the washing machine of the complainant was set right and made fully functional by the engineers of the opposite party as per call intervention details Ex.OP1/3. The last complaint was lodged by the complainant bearing No. CH-1014006968 on 20.10.2014 and the engineer of the opposite party attended the complaint and he found that the lid of the machine was broken. It was brought to the notice of the complainant that the machine is absolutely all right , only lid was broken. The lid is a plastic part and it does not fall within the purview of warranty terms and conditions, inspite of that the opposite party was ready to replace the same free of cost . But the complainant refused to get the machine repaired. Opposite party has also written letter dated 11.11.2014 Ex.OP1/2 in this regard to the complainant. But the complainant did not allow the opposite party to repair the washing machine by replacing the lid and any other broken part of the machine. The complainant could not produce any evidence that the washing machine is not repairable nor he has produced the report of any mechanic/expert in this regard. So when the machine of the complainant is repairable and the opposite party is ready to change the broken part of the machine and make it fully functional, so this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the opposite party to repair the washing machine of the complainant by replacing the broken/defective parts of the machine free of costs ; and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Complaint could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
8.9.2015 (Bhupinder Singh)
President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
/R/ Member Member
