BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt.  Case No : 66 of 2010

Date of Institution: 01.02.2010

Date of Decision  : 13.09.2010

Shiv Doda son of Sh.Bhani Ram Doda, R/o H.No.35(1) Gulmohar Trends, Dhakoli, Zirakpur (Punjab)

……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          Whirlpool of India Limited, Plot No.A-4, MIDC, Ranjan Goan, Taluka Shirur, District Pune (Maharashtra) 419204 through its competent/authorized officer.

2]          Whirlpool of India Limited, Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122 002 (Haryana) through its competent/authorized officer.

3]          Arvindra Electronics Limited through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorised Representative, SCO No.1112, Sector 22-B, Authorised Dealer of Whirlpool Products.

4]          Supreme Electro-Mech (P) Ltd., Plot No.78, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh through its competent/authorized officer.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Sh.Puneet Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

Shj.Geeta Gulati, Adv. for the OPs No.1 & 2.

Ops No.3 & 4 exparte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by Sh.Shiv Doda against Whirlpool of India Limited and the authorized dealers, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

1]             The facts of the case as per the complainant, are as under:-

                The complainant purchased a Whirlpool 350 Ltd. F/F Refrigerator in the year 2003 from OP No.3 (Dealer).  The refrigerator purchased was found defective and was replaced by Op No.3 within a month of purchase.  The new refrigerator like the earlier one carried a warranty of one year.

                The complainant again started experiencing trouble with the new refrigerator and the matter was reported to the Service Centre of OPs.  Since then the refrigerator has been checked and rechecked a number of times but is not still working properly to the satisfaction of the owner.  Originally it was emitting very loud noise and the cooling was less.  The complainant feels that the refrigerator definitely has a manufacturing defect since it is giving trouble from the beginning.  The AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) for the refrigerator was for a period of 3 years i.e. till 6.12.2008.  The complainant took further AMC for one year till 7.12.2009.  However, despite availing AMC, the complainant is still not satisfied and feels that there is a manufacturing/patent defect in the refrigerator, which none of the OPs has been able to rectify, over the past 4 years.  The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service and has prayed for replacement of the refrigerator or refund of original price paid, along with compensation. 

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed reply.  Since, OP No.3 was duly served and none appeared on its behalf, it was proceeded exparte on 30.3.2010.  Similarly, as no one appeared on behalf of OP No.4 despite due service, hence it was also proceeded exparte on 12.5.2010. 

3]             In the reply filed by OPs No1. & 2, they submitted that the complainant has come to the Court after the expiry of warranty and thus the complaint is not maintainable. 

                The refrigerator was bought in 2003 and carried warranty of one year.  It was replaced immediately when a manufacturing defect was found.  The replaced refrigerator was used by the complainant during the entire warranty period and now after the warranty period is over, he has filed a Consumer complaint asking for replacement.  They have referred to case laws of M/s Surya Agroils Ltd. Vs. M/s Allied Motors Ltd. & Ors. of Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi, to support their stand that when the warranty expires a complaint is not maintainable.

                The head-note is reproduced as under:-

“Defect-Deficiency of Service-Car purchased for the purpose of company in which edible oil manufactured – Subsequently car developed certain defects- In the warranty given to the complainant replacement of defective parts are allowed only within a period of twelve months or 16,000 kms. whichever is earlier – Complaint filed after expiry of warranty period – Whether complaint maintainable ? – (No).”

                The OPs have also alleged that the complainant has not mentioned the details of the manufacturing defect in the product and why he has waited for so many years to file the complaint when he was dissatisfied with the product/ refrigerator and the service provider from the beginning.  Further, as per Job Sheets appended as annexure, the OPs have shown that any complaint whenever made was always attended promptly and no charges for repairs were taken from the complainant during AMC.  Whenever any little problem occurred from time to time, it was rectified instantly.  The complainant has miserably failed to explain how a machine/refrigerator suffering from manufacturing defect could function for about 7 years and why did he pay for a subsequent AMC when the earlier one had expired when he was so dissatisfied. 

                In view of the above submissions, they have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and ld.Counsel for OP No.1 & 2 and have also perused the evidence and documents placed on record by the parties.  OPs No.3 & 4 already exparte.

5]             It is evident that the complainant has used the refrigerator for 7 years. 

                When he appeared in person at the time of hearing, he kept on insisting that there was a manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and it would make the same strange noise in the middle of the night.  The ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 was directed to check and verify this fact.  The OPs kept the refrigerator under observation for 10 days and submitted their report on 24.7.2010 stating there was not fault in the refrigerator as alleged by the complainant. 

6]             It is a very strange case where consumer wishes to have a continuing warranty for a product, which he has purchased 7 years ago. If he had found the product defective why did he take another AMC when the earlier one expired  after 3 years.  This definitely seems frivolous litigation where a complainant feels that he would get the sympathy of the Consumer Forum whenever he files his complaint and allege that the machinery/refrigeration is defective.  What has he done all these years.  The OPs were directed by this Forum to take refrigerator for checking.  It was found that there was no fault in the refrigerator as alleged by the complainant.  The refrigerator has been working well for the last 7 years.  There is no manufacturing defect in the machine, as alleged. Small defects/problems whenever  pointed out had been rectified by the OPs as per AMC available. It would be unfair and unjustify to give such a direction to the OPs.  We do not feel any further benefit needs to be given to the complainant.  His claim for replacement of the refrigerator and compensation is totally unjustified.

7]             In view of the above findings, this complaint dismissed with no order as to costs.                                                    

                Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of any charge. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance.    

Announced

13^th Sept., 2010                                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

“om”