BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.150 of 2017

Date of Instt. 16.05.2017

Date of Decision: 03.07.2018

Hari Om Verma S/o Madan Lal Verma, House No.17, Aman Nagar, Tanda Road, Jalandhar-144004

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Whirlpool of India Ltd. Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurugram-122002 Haryana, India.

2. Whirlpool Service Center Jalandhar, Street No.11, Central Town, Jalandhar, Punjab.

3. M/s Ravi Enterprises, Near Janta Hospital, Pathankot Bye Pass Chowk, Jalandhar-4.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

OP No.1 to 3 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased a double door refrigerator (Make Whirlpool of India Ltd.) 355 Liters ELT ALPHA STEEL (2S) from M/s Ravi Enterprises, Pathankot Byepass Chowk, Jalandhar on 27.12.2016, for a sum of Rs.32,500/-. Within one week of the purchase, the complainant noticed that the refrigerator was not working properly as the things kept in refrigerator compartment would get frozen. Even after 17 days of the purchase, none was came from the side of the company for demo, which generally happened on the next day of the purchase. Thereafter, the complainant called the seller to send somebody from the company for demo. Then on 14.01.2016, a representative of the company came for the purpose of demo and found that the fridge was not working properly. He tried to set it right but for no avail. Then the representative of the company informed the complainant that the refrigerator would be replaced with a new one as he was forwarding the request to the concerned officials. But nothing was happened for the next 18 days. Then the complainant called the toll free number of the customer care service of the company on 1^st February and he was told that his request for replacement of fridge had been accepted on 18 January. On inquiry, complainant was informed that as per policy of the company, the replacement job was to be done in 7 working days once the replacement request was accepted. But in his case, this had not happened even in 14 days. However, he was assured that his fridge was being replaced in a couple of days.

2. He received a call from the local service centre on 2 February, stated that replacement for his fridge had arrived and he was to send his faulty fridge to the service centre and get the new fridge. He told them that it was actually their job and they were to send the replacement and collect the faulty fridge. They agreed and said that it would be sent to the complainant very soon. Once again nothing happened for the next five days. On 6^th February, the complainant again called the toll free number of the customer care service of the company, to know about the status of the complaint of the complainant and was once again given the same information that a new fridge was being sent to very soon and also that he was to get a call from the local service centre within 24 hours, but the complainant did not receive any call on 7^th February. He received it only on 8^th February and he was informed that the replacement would be sent to him on the next day. On 9^th February, the complainant inquired why so much delay had been caused in sending the replacement of the fridge, but he was got a shocking answer, the auto rickshaw was not available. He kept on waiting, but nothing happened on 9^th February. It was only on 10^th February complainant received a call from the local service centre in this regard and he was extremely disappointed by the attitude, behaviour and dealing of the company and its local service centre in dealing with his problem and he felt harassed. Practically nothing had happened in previous 45 days. The callous and irresponsible behavior of the company and particularly its local service centre forced the complainant to decide not to get the replacement of the fridge, for the reason they will not provide a proper service. Then the complainant lodged a complaint with the office of the company on 14.02.2017 and requested them to collect the faulty refrigerator from his house and refund the price paid for it so that he might buy the product from an other company that was more responsible and that offered a better service. He was informed that his complaint had been registered and an action would soon be taken. On 15.02.2017, he received an email from the company stating thereby that the bill amount would be refunded to him in 35 to 45 working days.

3. In the first week of April, he got a call from the local service centre stating that his refund had been approved. He was told to bring the faulty refrigerator to the service centre and collect the refund amount, but the complainant declined to carry the refrigerator to the service centre as it was the responsibility of the company to collect the non functioning product. Then nothing happened for the next 25 days or so. In the first week of May, complainant received a call from the service centre saying that they were sending someone to collect the fridge, but complainant refused to handover the fridge to them and told them that he was going to file a case in the Consumer Court because of the extreme callousness and irresponsibility, unprofessional attitude and an extremely poor and delayed after sales service and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to refund the price of the faulty refrigerator along with the interest @ 18% per annum for a period starting from the date of purchase till now and further OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- as a compensation for the things that got spoilt in one month due to poor working to the refrigerator and further OPs be directed to pay back an amount of Rs.200/- that he had paid as carriage charges for transporting the fridge from the seller to the house of the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for mental harassment to the tune of Rs.32,500/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.3 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte. Whereas OP No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed joint reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motive for exerting illegitimate financial gain from the OP and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground and further averred that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands rather suppressed the material facts. The complainant has withheld the fact that due to unavailability of the same model, promptly refund was processed that too with the full approval of the complainant. This fact has been concocted in the complaint in order to make a case out of nothing. The plain reading of the complaint makes it abundantly clear that it has been twisted to the limit in order to portray a sorry picture, whereas the truths are altogether different i.e. there is absolutely no ground to file the present complaint case. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the refrigerator is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant made a complaint on telephone, which was attended by the OP No.1 and 2 and upon the complaint of the complainant, authorized service engineer of the OP visited the house of the complainant to rectify the defect, but the complainant himself flatly refused to get it repaired and insisted for replacement with a new one and further submitted that the complainant was informed about the unavailability of the same model as used by the complainant on 06.02.2017. The answering OP, as a goodwill gesture as well as abiding by the terms of the warranty given at the time of the sale of the refrigerator in question gave two offers one either to have a refund of the entire amount i.e. Rs.32,500/- or second, he can choose any other model and can pay the difference of the price, if any and further submitted that the refund amount was approved and cheque No.78833 of the HDFC Bank with amount of Rs.32,500/- dated 01.03.2017 was prepared in favour of the complainant and the complainant was duly informed that refund amount would be handed over to him and the refrigerator in question will be taken back by the answering OP. The complainant acted strangely and flatly refused to give back the refrigerator in question for the reason best known to him. The complainant further insisted to keep the refrigerator as well as amount. The other averments made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 i.e. Copies of Emails and Ex.C-8 Retail Invoice and then closed the evidence.

6. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of the OP No.1 and 2, but despite availing two opportunities, the OP No.1 and 2 failed to lead any evidence rather ultimately, neither the OP No.1 and 2 nor their counsel appeared and OP No.1 and 2 were proceeded also against exparte.

7. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. The case of the complainant to the effect that the double door refrigerator make Whirlpool, purchased by the complainant is not properly working, admitted by the OP in its reply in Para No.3, in the manner that on receipt of the complaint of the complainant an authorized service engineer visited the premises of the complainant, who rectified the defect and further in Para No.6 of the written reply, on merits, again admitted that the complainant was informed about the unavailability of the same model and as such, two offers were given to the complainant either to get refund the entire price amount of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.32,500/- or second, he can choose any other model and can pay the difference of the price and further, in Para No.12 of the reply admitted that a refund voucher to the effect of Rs.32,500/- dated 01.03.2017 was prepared in favour of the complainant and the complainant was duly informed about the refund amount, will be handed over to the complainant and the refrigerator in question will be taken back by the answering OP.

9. From the above reply of the OP, it is clearly established that the OP has admitted that there was some defect in the refrigerator and due to that reason, the OPs were ready to refund the price of the refrigerator, but the version of the OP that the complainant was not ready to accept the said refund amount on the pretext that he will not return the old refrigerator and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

10. We do not agree with this submission of the OP as taken in the written reply, because the OP has not placed on the file any photostat copy of the said cheuqe, which was allegedly prepared on 01.03.2017, if prepared, then the OPs had to handover the said cheque to the complainant in the Forum, but they never made such efforts, which shows that the OPs are lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and since, January, 2017 the OPs are not settling the matter of the complainant for the best known reason, which is tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the price of the refrigerator of Rs.32,500/-, to the complainant along with compensation to the tune of Rs.7000/-. The complainant will return the old refrigerator to the OP on receipt of the aforesaid amount. If the OP failed to make the payment of aforesaid whole amount within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, then OPs will be liable to pay interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

03.07.2018 Member President