BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 31^st DAY OF JANUARY 2023

COMPLAINT No.15/2022                                           

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. To Direct the respondents to pay Rs.37,490/- he had paid for the service along with the compensation of the amount of Rs.25,000/- for metal agony  and
2. To Direct to pay the of litigation.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant had purchased a double door refrigerator of Whirlpool brand on 27.02.2021 for an amount of Rs.37,490/- from OP-2. The said refrigerator was functioning without any problem for 07 months. After that the refrigerator was not working properly and it has PCB and compressor issues.

After that the complainant has raised service request with the OP on 30.09.2021 and after submitting several requests one of the OP technician visited and advised that the PCB and compressor of the refrigerator needs to be replaced.

It is further grievance of the complainant that it was guaranteed by the OPs technician that the issues would be rectified within 3-4 working days and had assured that nothing is needed from the complainant’s end. After receiving no updates from the OP end he approached the OP concerned and found that the OP have closed the ticket to which he did not get any appropriate answers.

It is further grievance of the complainant that he has insisted the OP concern to reopen the same service request to which he was again assured that the matter would be resolved in another 2-3 days. The complainant has escalated the matter to which the OPs have given false hopes and promises. Such act of the OPs is highly unexpected and unprofessional and the complainant has been extremely harassed during whole procedure. Being deprived of the facilitated service the complainant intimated the OPs concern on several occasions, however the OPs have acted as flogging of dead horse. In order to provide resolution which is extremely unprofessional in nature. Due to the afore mentioned malafide act and conduct the complainant got duped. The complainant has faced tremendous noetic agony and due to the same the complainant was not able to live the life own accord.

At last the complainant got issued legal notice on 19.10.2021 and then also the OP did not provide any reply to the complainant. The OPs have miserably failed in providing good service despite the complainant has paid the full amount in advance to the OP authorities and there by caused deficiency in service. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, OP-1 & 2 appears and filed their version.

The OP-1 has admitted the product purchased by the complainant and the complaint raised by him. They have sent their technician engineer on 24.07.2021 to resolve the issue. On examination by technician it was noticed that there were certain issues in relation to the compressor and PCB. The company agreed to replace the compressor and PCB with new ones with free of cost. However, the complainant insisted for replacement of old refrigerator with new one instead of replacement of parts covered under warranty. In view of the stand taken by the complainant he did not permit the OP-1 to replace the parts.

This OP-1 was at all times and even now ready to replace the compressor and PCB which has developed certain problems. The request of the complainant for replacement of the refrigerator is not permissible. Under the warrant it is limited to the extent of carrying out the repair or replacement of compressor and PCB with a new one in working condition and does not provide for the replacement of the refrigerator itself. Apart from the compressor and PCB no other part of the refrigerator needs replacement as they are in good condition.

The complainant by suppressing all the true facts as to the advice given by the technician has approached this Hon’ble Commission with untenable claim. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. The OP-2 have filed their version repeated all the contentions taken by the OP-1 and further stated that the complaint is not maintainable against them in the absence of any material to prove the manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator as on the date of filing of the complaint.

The OP-2 has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. V/s N.Siva Kumar, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 654 and further stated that in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble supreme court the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this OP. 

This OP has not caused any deficiency of service since the service centre has been ready to provide the remedy, but the complainant appears to be refusing for the same for the reasons best known to him. The complainant is very much interested in harassing this OP and to make wrongful gains. Even today this OP is ready and willing to provide such assistance by escalating the issue with the brand or its service centre or as it may directed by this commission as for an early resolution of the dispute. Therefore, the OP-2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The complainant has not filed any affidavit evidence and produced  03 documents.    Department manager of OP-2 has filed his affidavit evidence and not produced any documents.

6. Complainant filed written arguments. OPs have not filed written arguments.   Perused the written argument filed by the complainant and documents.

7. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

8. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Negative

      Point No.2: Affirmative in part

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

9. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.
10. Perused the complaint, written arguments filed by the complainant, version and evidence affidavit of the OPs and documents filed by the complainant.
11. It is undisputed fact the complainant has purchased the disputed refrigerator from OP-2 on 27.02.2021 for an amount of Rs.37,490/- and he has used the same for about 07 months. The refrigerator is covered by a warranty of 01 year plus additional warranty for 09 years for the compressor.
12. The complaint is registered by the complainant relating to functioning of the refrigerator in September 2021 and in response to the same a technician from OP has visited the complainant on 24.07.2021 to resolve the issue. On examination by the technician it was noticed that there were certain issues in relation to the compressor and PCB.
13. The company OP-1 agreed to replace the compressor and PCB with new ones with free of cost, but the complainant insisted for replacement of old refrigerator with new one instead of replacement of the parts covered under warranty. In view of this the complainant did not permit the OP-1 to replace the parts. The other parts of the refrigerator are in good working condition.

14. It is further case of the Ops that  they are even today ready to replace the compressor and PCB and there is no option to replace the old refrigerator with new one to the complainant.

15. In support of their contention the OP-2 have also relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. V/s N.Siva Kumar, reported in (2000)10 SCC 654, in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme court was pleased to uphold the observation of the National Commission that

“An apprehension has been expressed by the dealer that the burden of this may ultimately fall upon the dealer. We make it clear that for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable. The liability must be borne by the manufacturer”

16. In view of the above decision the OP-2 who is dealer is not liable as it relates to the manufacturing defect.

17. It is clear from the various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex court that the court should not order for the replacement of the entire new vehicle or any article and the court has to direct the OPs to replace defective parts in the product.

18. When the OPs are ready to replace the compressor and PCB the complainant has to accept the same and allow them to replace the same for normal functioning of the refrigerator. The complainant is not entitled for the replacement of his old refrigerator by new one since he has used the same for 07 months.

19. The complainant has suffered mental harassment in view of the defect founds in the compressor and PCB in the refrigerator after purchasing the same by paying the entire amount. When the OPs have refused to replace the refrigerator with new one, he has approached this commission by filing this complaint.

20. The conduct of the OPs clearly discloses that they have not committed any deficiency of service. They have provided the technicians from their company to repair the refrigerator and they  have also offered for replacement of PCB and compressor with new one. But the complainant has not allowed them to replace the same by taking the contention that they have provide new refrigerator. Hence,   the complainant fails to establish the deficiency of service on the part of OP-1 & 2. But the complainant is entitled for replacement of compressor and PCB with free of cost from the OP-1 & 2.    Hence we answer point No.1 in negative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.

21. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we have decided to direct the OPs to replace the old compressor and PCB with new one with free of charge. The complainant is entitled for  litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

                        O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP-1 & 2 are directed to  replace the old compressor and PCB with new one with free of charge
3. The OP-1 & 2 are further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the  complainant.
4. The OP-1 & 2  shall comply this order within 30 days from this date failing which the OPs shall pay an amount of Rs.100/- per day till replacement of compressor and PCB to the complainant.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 31^st day of JANUARY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 & 2: - NIL –