Delhi

North East

CC/90/2021

Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirlpool Of India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.90/21

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Shri Pankaj Aggarwal, C-41/Z-2, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Whirpool Of India Ltd. Whirpool House Plot No. 40, Sector 44, Gurugram-122002 Haryana, India   K.N Services 28/38, Gali No. 16, Vishwas Nagar Sahadara, Delhi-110032 Also At: C-17A, 1st Floor, Mandawali Upper, Opp. Nav Niti Apartment I.P Extension, Delhi 110092	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

26.07.2021 11.01.2023 23.02.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                         

ORDER

     Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that an fully automatic machine was purchased by sister of the complainant on his behalf along with TV and Fridge for her personal use and payment was done through her card in 2016 at the address of Hari Nagar. The washing machine was brought by the complainant for his personal use and afterwards complainant had changed the address in records of company to Dilshad Garden in company records for warranty purposes. On many occasions the washing machine was serviced at Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95 and extended warranty was first purchased in 2018 at the above address and thereafter further extended warranty was purchased from the company in 2020 and having validity July 2022. The said service was to be done promptly as promised by Whirlpool through its policy for extended warranty, which was never honoured by Whirlpool itself but said prolong delay is constituted as deficiency in Services on part of Whirlpool. The complainant had paid the fee of Rs. 5,400/- through cheque drawn on PNB, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95 in favour of Whirlpool India through account payee cheque on dated 02.07.2020. As per the contract the company was bound to service washing machine in extended warranty period free of cost include all cost of parts and labour cost etc. The demand of the company in the name of chemical washing is the malpractices and deficiency in services after accepting payments. Complainant had reported the mater on helpline mobile no’s given but it was never answered by any one or done nothing to till date. After taking charges in the name of chemical wash company never issued proper receipt in accordance of law and issued a hand written receipt of charges taken. The complainant is being harassed by Whirlpool even after paying the requisite fee for extended warranty  for fully automatic washing machine and made to run pillar to post for getting his legitimate work i.e. service of washing machine get done. The above stated facts clearly show the commitment and intent for processing the extended warranty on part of whirlpool. When the complainant tried to get clarification from the Whirlpool through phone Whirlpool, they did not pick any call and if pick not transferred/answered and they misbehaved the complainant by not admitting their error. This clearly depict that Whirlpool is committing fraud on customers by harassing due to no error customers. The complainant has prayed to pay/refund the wrongly charged cost taken on two occasions to the tune of Rs. 2,800/-,  Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of delay/negligence/deficiency in services, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs. 40,000/- on account of litigation charges
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 despite notice served on 23.09.21. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.04.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. Opposite Party No. 1 has contested the case and filed its written statement. The case of Opposite Party No. 1 is that the complaint regarding opted for the AMC is a matter of record and the complainant has to put strict proof thereof. The contents of para regarding washing machine defective many times during the AMC period, the complainant is only alleging general type of baseless allegations, the complainant not mentioned any specific complaint no. and date against which he lodged the complaint with the Opposite Party No. 1. The contents regarding the extra charging for chemical cleaning, that the complainant is well aware what is covered under the AMC and the chemical cleaning was done with the prior permission of the complainant and accordingly he paid the charges for the chemical cleaning. It is appropriate to state here that the complainant himself filed the terms of the contract along with the present complaint in which clearly mentioned that “ Fully-Auto, Top loading & Front loading : Motor, pressor sensor, drive assembly capacitor, inlet Valve, Suspension rod (assembly) PCB and on preventive maintenance service, visit and transportation charges covered” is covered under the warranty. It is further stated that it is appropriate to state here that the chemical cleaning is optional and done with the prior consent of the customer; hence no question of malpractice and deficiency in service arose. It is further stated that the complaint regarding non issuance of proper receipt, the complainant try to mislead Hon'ble Commission by alleging such type of baseless allegations the receipt filed along with the complainant, issued by the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No. 1 is having full particulars with GST no.  In reply to para the complainant not mentioned the definition of proper service, the complainant not mentioned any specific complaint no. and date against which he lodges the complaint and authorize service centre of the Opposite Party No. 1 fails to provide the after-sale service as assured under the terms of the warranty. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant, it is appropriate to state here that the bill, job sheet & home care plan filed along with the present complaint in the name of “Dr. Jaya Gupta”, no such documents is filed along with the complaint to show that the complainant is the purchaser of the washing machine, and the complainant also not explained his position, in which capacity he has filed the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground along. The complainant has not mentioned any specific defect in the washing machine for which he approaches the Hon'ble Forum. The relief claimed by the complainant is badly barred by the limitation as the complainant purchase the washing machine in question on 09.07.2016 and the warranty and limitation to evoke the provision of the already expired on 08.07.2018, hence the present complaint is badly barred by the limitation and to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Opposite Parties has never denied providing the service assured under the warranty. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of Opposite Parties. The Opposite parties have never denied providing the service assured under the appliances maintenance contract.

 

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party No.1

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 wherein Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Parties has filed affidavit of Shri Neeraj Mehta, working as Senior Manager, wherein the Opposite Party supported the averments made in its written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant and Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1.  We have also perused the file.  The case of the complainant is that his sister purchased the fully automatic washing machine on his behalf for his personal use at the address of Hari Nagar. Afterwards complainant had changed the address in records of the company to Dilshad Garden for AMC and warranty purposes. He purchased extended warranty in 2018 and thereafter further extended warranty was purchased from the Opposite Party No. 1 in 2020 and warranty was valid till July 2022. As per the complainant the service was to be done promptly as promised by Opposite Party No. 1 through its policy for extended warranty, which was never honoured by the Opposite Party, which is itself constituted as deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1. As per Terms and Conditions of extended warranty, Opposite Party No. 1 was bound to service washing machine in extended warranty period free of cost including all cost of parts and labour cost etc. During the said warranty period, Opposite Party No. 1 was charged the complainant for chemical cleaning which is tantamount, malpractices and deficiency in service of the Opposite Party No. 1. It is further alleged by the complainant that in the name of chemical washing Opposite Party No. 1 never issued proper receipt in accordance of law and issued a hand written receipt of charges taken. Complainant was harassed by the Opposite Party No. 1 even after paying the requisite fee for extended warranty for fully automatic washing machine and made to run pillar to post for getting service of the washing machine It is clearly depict that Opposite Party No. 1 is committing fraud on customers by harassing due to no error customers.
8. As per Opposite Party No. 1, the allegations of the complainant regarding washing machine faces many problem during the AMC period which is general in nature, complainant did not mentioned any specific complaint no. and date against which he lodged the complaint with the Opposite Party No. 1. The contents regarding the extra charges for chemical cleaning, the complainant is well aware what is covered under the AMC and the chemical cleaning was done with the prior permission of the complainant and accordingly he paid the charges for the chemical cleaning. It is further stated by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the chemical cleaning is not the part of the extended warranty and the same was optional and done with the prior consent of the customer; hence no question of malpractice and deficiency in service arose. The Opposite Party No. 1 has never denied providing the service assured under the warranty. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1. With regard to the chemical cleaning, Complainant himself paid charges twice for chemical cleaning without any protest and did not provide any material before this Hon'ble Forum about the chemical cleaning was to be done without charges during the extended warranty period. Hence, the complainant is dismissed accordingly.
10. Order announced on 23.02.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President