Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/845/2016

Ms. Gurleen Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Kunal Garg

23 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/845/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	21/09/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	23/03/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Gurleen Kaur, R/o H.No.2615, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

…………. Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  Whirlpool of India Limited, M/s Whirlpool House, through its Director/ Authorized Signatory, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana.

 

[2]  Customer Care Centre, Whirlpool of India Limited, through its Incharge/ Auth. Signatory, Plot No.78, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

[3]  Harjas Enterprises, through its Incharge/ Auth. Signatory, SCO 359-360, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh – 160022.

……… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.S.S. PANESAR              PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR          MEMBER

                SH. S.K.SARDANA              MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Kunal Garg, Advocate.
For OPs No.1 & 2	:	Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant purchased one Whirlpool Refrigerator from the Opposite Party No.3 on 14.04.2014 vide bill No. 2479 after paying a total consideration of Rs.23,000/-. It has been alleged that after few days of its purchase, the said Refrigerator stopped functioning and cracks in the door attachment appeared. Other functions of the Refrigerator such as cooling, auto frost, green frost etc. also became non-functional. Immediately, the problems being faced were apprised to the Opposite Party No.3, whose Service Engineer visited the premises of the Complainant, but could not resolve the defects in the Refrigerator. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.3 various times and briefed the problems being faced, but no proper response was ever given. Ultimately, on 16.09.2016, the Opposite Parties took the Refrigerator, in question, to their Service Centre, with an assurance to replace the same with a new one. But on 19.09.2016, the Opposite Party No.3 flatly refused to replace the Refrigerator with a new one or to pay the price of the same. Resultantly, the Refrigerator is still lying in the possession of the Opposite Parties. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that the Refrigerator had one year comprehensive warranty and additional warranty for the Compressor for four years. The first Complaint was registered on 7.4.2015 and the same was redressed by explaining the proper ventilation required for the proper functioning of the product. The second Complaint was registered by the Complainant on 16.09.2016. On inspection of the product, the Service Engineer found that the Freezer of the Refrigerator was punctured by the Complainant and therefore there was leakage of gas, which has caused non-cooling of the Refrigerator. The Service Engineer also found Gasket of the Refrigerator damaged which was non repairable. The defects in the Refrigerator are, therefore, attributable to the negligence of the Complainant. It has been asserted that the Refrigerator door cannot be replaced as the OP-Company is no more manufacturing the model of the Refrigerator of the Complainant. It has been admitted that the Refrigerator is still with the Service Centre, as the Complainant is not taking the delivery of the defective Refrigerator. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.      It is evident from Annexure C-2 the copy of the Bill that the Complainant purchased one Whirlpool Refrigerator on 14.4.2014 for Rs.23,000/-. Annexure C-4 is the job-sheet dated 16.9.2016, according to which the cooling of the Refrigerator was not proper. As per the case of the Complainant, he informed the Opposite Parties even before 16.9.2016, in the month of April 2015, through e-mail annexed as Annexure C-3, for rectification of the error in the Refrigerator. The Refrigerator in question is lying in the possession of the Opposite Parties as the defective parts are not available with the Opposite Parties.

 

8.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is that on inspection of the product their Service Engineer found that the Freezer of the Refrigerator was punctured by the Complainant, therefore, there was no cooling in the Refrigerator. It has also been urged that the Refrigerator in question is non-repairable as the defect in the Refrigerator requires the change of the right door, but the same cannot be replaced as the Opposite Parties, at present, are not manufacturing the model of the Refrigerator which is of the Complainant.

 

9.      Perusal of e-mail (Annexure C-3) makes it clear that the Complaint with regard to the cooling of the Refrigerator was conveyed to the Opposite Parties on 7.4.2015 i.e. within one year of the purchase of the product in question. Annexure C-1 which is a copy of the Warranty Card, shows that the Whirlpool offers 1 year comprehensive warranty and additional four years warranty for the compressor. This aspect has not been refuted by the Opposite Parties in their written reply.

 

10.      The Opposite Parties have contended that the Refrigerator door cannot be replaced, as they have discontinued the manufacturing of the model of the Refrigerator in question. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, the Opposite Parties on the one hand, admittedly, gave one year comprehensive warranty and additional four years warranty for the compressor, but on the other hand, they do not have spare parts of the model of the Refrigerator in question which was purchased just two years back. In general, a Refrigerator is being used for many years and not only for a year or two. Meaning thereby the Opposite Parties are guilty of unfair trade practice by selling such product to their consumers/ customers, which they were likely to discontinue in the near future. To our mind, if a manufacturer sells a particular model to its consumers/customers, at least, it must keep on providing spare parts for few more years, with a view to provide proper services to its customers/ consumers.

 

11.      The Opposite Parties have next contended that the defects in the product was due to the negligence of the Complainant as she herself punctured the freezer of the Refrigerator. However, the Opposite Parties did not bring any cogent proof to substantiate their stand as the onus to prove the same laid at their door. Hence, in the absence of any such proof, the version of the Opposite Parties in this regard is hollow and deserves no merit. In these set of circumstances, the act of the Opposite Parties for non-providing proper services to the Complainant and discontinuing the manufacturing of the spare parts of the product which was purchased just two years back, proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.

 

12.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.23,000/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the Refrigerator;

 

[b]    To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

13.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] & [b] above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23^rd March, 2017                                         Sd/- 

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/- 

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/- 

(S.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

 “Dutt”