THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 89 of 2015
Date of Institution : 6.2.2015
Date of Decision : 1.10.2015
S. Gagandeep Singh S/o S.Baldev Singh R/oB-607, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Whirlpool of India Ltd., Plot No. 40, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122002 through its Principal Officer
M/s. S.C. Electronics, Auth.dealer of Whirlpool Home Appliances, Syeno Showroom, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its Partner/prop.
Whirlpool Service Centre, Star Enterprises, SCO-8, Anand Avenue Market, Amritsar through its Manager
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. S.K.Sharma,Advocate
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh.A.S.Grover,Advocate
For opposite parties No.2 & 3 : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Gagandeep Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one Whirlpool refrigerator double door, for Rs. 28500/- from opposite party No.2 against receipt dated 12.10.2014 alongwith the M.Trolley for Rs. 1100/- and paid full price of the same. According to the complainant on the same day he found that it was broken from inside and complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.2, who replaced the same with single door refrigerator for Rs. 22000/- vide invoice dated 14.10.2014 and the amount of Rs. 6500/- was refunded to the complainant. Complainant has alleged that since the very first day, it was noticed by the complainant and his family members that there was problem of making noise while opening the door, being a different voice not acceptable to them. The complainant lodged report about the said defect to Whirlpool Helpline No. 1800 208 1800 and a mechanic of the service centre visited the house of the comdplainant and found making noise but he did nothing and told that it is a general voice and he cannot do anything. Thereafter complainant made so many calls to the opposite parties and they sent their mechanic for about 10 times but they also did nothing and made the same excuse of general voice, whereas there is manufacturing defect in the door of the refrigerator. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to either replace the refrigerator or its door or in the alternative to refund its full price alongwith interest . Compensation of Rs. 40000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that since the very first day, it was noticed by the complainant and his family members that there is problem of making voice/noise while opening the door. It was admitted that complainant lodged a complaint with the company and same was attended by the mechanic. But it was denied that the mechanic found the refrigerator making any noise and he did nothing. The complaint was lodged with the opposite party on 21.10.2014 and same was attended by the mechanic on the same day and he found the refrigerator absolutely OK. But the complainant again lodged complaints on 22.10.2014, 24.10.2014 and 3.11.2014 and all the complaints were attended by the service engineer , who found the refrigerator in perfect condition and same fact was told to the complainant but the complainant was adamant for replacement of the refrigerator. It was denied that complainant made calls from time to time to the opposite party and they sent their mechanic for about 10 times and he did nothing. It was denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the door of the refrigerator. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 9.3.2015.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavitn Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Deepak Kumar Chugh Ex.OP1/1, copy of call intervention detail Ex.OP1/2.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that firstly complainant purchased one Whirlpool Refrigerator double door from opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs. 28500/- vide invoice dated 12.10.2014 Ex.C-2 alongwith motor trolley for Rs. 1100/- vide receipt dated 15.10.2014 Ex.C-4. The said refrigerator was found broken from inside . Resultantly opposite party No.2 replaced the said refrigerator with single door refrigerator for Rs. 22000/- vide invoice dated 14.10.2014 Ex.C-2 and refunded the amount of Rs. 6500/- to the complainant. The complainant submitted that the single door refrigerator had problem of making noise/voice while opening its door. The said voice was a different voice, not acceptable to the complainant. So the complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party on helpline No. 1800 208 1800. The authorized service centre of the company sent their mechanic to the house of the complainan, who checked the door of the refrigerator but did nothing and told that it is a general voice and not a differrent voice as such he did nothing to the refrigerator. But the complainant was not satisfied. So he lodged complaint to the company from time to time and they send their mechanic, number of times. But he too did nothing in this regard by stating that it is a general voice in the door. The complainant submitted that it is a manufacturing defect in the door of the refrigerator but the opposite party could not repair the same. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.1 is that complainant lodged complaint with the company that there was problem of making voice/noise while opening the door of the refrigerator and it was a different voice not acceptable to the complainant and his family members. The said complaint was attended by the mechanic and he found that refrigerator was not making any noise. Opposite party denied that the said mechanic told the complainant that it is a general voice and that he could do nothing. Thereafter complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party company on 21.10.2014 and the same was attended by the mechanic on the same day and the refrigerator was found absolutely OK. No voice was found while opening the door of the refrigerator of the complainant. But the complainant again lodged complaint on 22.10.2014, 24.10.2014 and 3.11.2014 with the same allegation . The service engineer attended the complaint and found the refrigerator in perfect condition and it was told to the complainant by the service engineer that there is no voice what to speak of a different voice while opening the door of the refrigerator. But the complainant was adamant for replacement of the refrigerator. Opposite party denied that the complainant made several complaints and the mechanic visited the house of the complainant about 10 times. Opposite party produced on record call intervention details Ex.OP1/2 which proves that all the complaints made by the complainant regarding refrigerator in question were fully attended by the mechaic of the opposite party. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, it stands proved that complainant purchased double door refrigerator from the opposite party on 12.10.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 28,500/-. The said refrigerator was not in order and the opposite party No.2 replaced the same with single door refrigerator which was accepted by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 22000/- vide invoice dated 14.10.2014 Ex.C-2 and the balance amount of Rs. 6500/- was refunded to the complainant. The complainant alleges that in the second single door refrigerator, there was problem of making noise while opening its door and this noise being a different voice which was not acceptable to the complainant and his family members, so they lodged complaint with the opposite party. The call intervention details of the opposite party Ex.OP1/2 gives details of all the complaints lodged by the complainant with the opposite party. On 15.10.2014, the said refrigerator was installed at the house of the complainant . On that day Demo was given and features were explained to the complainant. Thereafter on 21.10.2014 complaint was received regarding door noise of the refrigerator while opening the door. The said complainant was attended by the mechanic of the company and the refrigerator was found “OK”. Similarly on 22.10.2014 same complaint regarding door noise was made by the complainant and the same was attended by the mechanic of the company on the same day and the refrigerator was found OK. Again same complainant was made by the complainant on 24.10.2014 which was attended by the mechanic of the company on 25.10.2014 and the refrigerator was found OK. Again same complaint was made by the complainant to the company on 3.11.2014 and the mechanic of the company attended this complaint on 14.11.2014. The refrigerator was found OK, however there was normal door noise and this fact was told to the complainant that it was a normal door noise, but the customer was demanding for the replacement of the refrigerator. The complainant could not point out any inherent or manufacturing defect in the refrigerator nor he examined any expert/mechanic of the refrigerator in this regard that the refrigerator of the complainant is not working properly, whereas it is the admitted case of the complainant that the refrigerator was giving proper cooling and functioning properly. However, there is noise while opening the door, whereas the mechanics of the company have checked the refrigerator of the complainant several times i.e. on 21.10.2014, 22.10.2014, 25.10.2014 and 4.11.2014 and told to the complainant that there is no such different noise , it is a normal voice which is being given by the door of the refrigerator while opening the same.
10. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that the complainant could not point out any manufacturing or inherent defect in the refrigerator, whereas the reports of the opposite party mechanics who attended the complaints of the complainant and checked the refrigerator of the complainant every time submitted that refrigerator of the complainant is OK and is functioning properly.
11. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any defect in the refrigerator of the complainant or any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party .
12. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
1.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
