DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:653 of 2010]

                                                           Date of Institution : 07.10.2010

                                                           Date of Decision    : 27.04.2011

Smt. Silky Bali wife of Sh. Pankaj Bali resident of House No.3469FF, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1.    Whirlpool of India Limited, H.O.28 NIT Faridabad through its Regional Manager, Whirlpool.

2.    Sachdeva Electronics, SCO No.2415, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI     MEMBER

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued By:Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 already exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Smt. Silky Bali has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :-

i)                   To replace the refrigerator in question with the new refrigerator;

ii)                 To pay compensation in terms of heavy cost for causing mental tension, harassment and agony.

2.                In brief the case of the complainant is that on 17.10.2005, he purchased a Whirlpool refrigerator Model F-30 for Rs.16,000/- from OP No.2. After some time, the said refrigerator started creating trouble because of various manufacturing defects. As per the complainant, he registered numerous complaints with the OPs and the refrigerator had almost come into non working condition in the middle of the year 2009. It is averred that the engineer of the OP Company visited the complainant several times i.e. on 21.4.2006, 17.8.2007, 1.6.2009, 6.7.2009 and 23.9.2009 and charged money for repairing the refrigerator but the defects were not removed. Finally, the complainant served a legal notice dated 11.10.2009 upon the OPs but to no avail. Again a legal notice dated 8.4.2010 was served upon the OPs consequent to which, the refrigerator was taken to the customer care centre on 10.5.2010 on the advice of the service engineer. It is averred by the complainant that the refrigerator was returned to him on the same day informing that the spare part is not available with the OPs.  Thus, according to the complainant, non repair of the refrigerator by the OPs and further in case of non repair, refusal to replace the same with a new refrigerator, amounts to deficiency in service. 

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                In the written statement filed OP No.1, it has been averred that Job Sheet dated 24.11.2010 shows that the complaint has been attended by the OP’s engineer and the complainant was not interested in getting the product checked and was insisting on the replacement of the refrigerator. As per OP No.1, there is no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question. It has further been pleaded that the complaints were registered by the complainant with the service centre and not with OP No.1, so, it is not at all responsible to compensate the complainant. As regards the complaint reported on 21.4.2006, OP No.1 asserted that the defect was rectified and no charges were claimed as the product was under comprehensive warranty period, which expired on 6.7.2009. As per OP No.1, the service engineer, who visited the premises of the complainant on 24.11.2010 reported that there is choking in the capilliary of the refrigerator. It is next pleaded that the complainant whenever registered a complaint with the call centre were duly attended by OP No.1 and it is not liable for the services rendered by the service centre. According to the OP No.1, there is no deficiency in service in not replacing the refrigerator in question as there is no manufacturing defect in the same. So, the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                OP No.2, which is the dealer who had sold the refrigerator to the complainant, was duly served with the notice but none appeared on its behalf and it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 9.12.2010.  

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a whirlpool Refrigerator from OP No.1 vide Cash/Credit Memo dated 17.10.2005 (Annexure C-1) and the said refrigerator was carrying one year comprehensive warranty and six year warrant on compressor. Page 16 of the operating instructions manual reads as under: -

                             “One Year Comprehensive Warranty.

The refrigerator and all parts thereof (except the light bulb, crisper glass and add-on plastic parts) to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service. WOIL’s obligations under this Warranty shall be limited to repairing or providing the replacement of any part (except the light bulb, crisper glass and add-on plastic parts) of said refrigerator which thus proves defective within one year from the date of original purchase and which on WOIL’s examination discloses to its satisfaction to be thus defective.

(ii) 6 Year Warranty on Compressor.

The compressor to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service. WOIL’s obligation under this warranty shall be limited to repairing or providing the replacement of compressor with another in working condition which thus proves defective within 6 years commencing immediately after the expiry of the 1 year period from the date of purchase and which on WOIL’s examination discloses to its satisfaction to be thus defective. This warranty covers compressor only. Gas charging is included only when compressor is defective and inoperative. It does not cover any other part such as condenser, freezer, capillary, suction line, overload protector, relay, thermostat etc.”

7.                From the reading of the above warranty conditions, it is very much clear that the refrigerator in question was carrying one year comprehensive warranty and six year warranty on compressor both running simultaneously and concurrently. In whole of the complaint, there was no allegation made by the complainant that the compressor of the refrigerator was defective. Thus, the case of the complainant does not fall under six year warranty clause on compressor.

8.                So, far as the case of the complainant as regards the other defects in the refrigerator is concerned, it is proved from Cash/Credit Memo (Annexure C-1) that the refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant on 17.10.2005 and the OPs were under obligation under comprehensive warranty conditions to repair or provide replacement of any part (except the light bulb, crisper glass and add-on plastic parts) of said refrigerator which proved defective within one year from the date of original purchase. Thus, the comprehensive warranty itself expired on 16.10.2006. The complainant has himself admitted in his complaint that the engineer of OP company visited the complainant firstly on 21.4.2006 to attend the problem of water leakage, which was satisfactorily rectified. From perusal of this document i.e. Job Sheet dated 21.4.2006, it is apparent that OPs did not charge anything from the complainant as the refrigerator was covered under warranty. But subsequently, after the expiry of warranty period on 16.10.2006, the OPs charged the complainant for attending the complaints on 17.8.2007, 1.6.2009, 6.7.2009 and 23.9.2009. Thus, in our considered view, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in adhering to the terms and conditions of warranty.

9.                As regards the prayer of the complainant for replacement of the refrigerator is concerned, we are of the view that since the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question, especially in respect of the defective compressor, by way of any expert report/opinion, this contention of his cannot be accepted. As such, the OPs are not liable to replace the refrigerator or refund its price. It is also surprising that the complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2010 and that is after more than four years from the date of expiry of comprehensive warranty of one year. He used the refrigerator for almost five years and now at this stage, his allegation of the refrigerator suffering of manufacturing defect cannot be accepted. Thus, in our considered opinion, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs

10.              In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the complaint, the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

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

Announced.

27^th April 2011.

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

[Complaint Case No:653 of 2010]

PRESENT: None.

                                                          ---

                   Arguments heard on 25.04.2011. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

27.04.2011          Member              President             Member