Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/123

Vishal Khullar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirlpool of India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ankur Ghai ADv.

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 123 of 26.02.2015

Date of Decision            :   17.08.2015

 

Vishal Khullar son of Shri Tara Chand Khullar r/o 381-C,Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.Managing Director of Whirlpool of India Limited A-4, MDIC, Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirur, District Pune, Maharashtra(PIN-419204).

Second Address:- Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

2.M/s.Supertech Engineers, SCF 6, Ground Floor, Bharat Nagar Ext. Near Bus Stand, Chuna Bhati, Ludhiana.

3.M/s. Dee Kay Electronics, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Ankur Ghai, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh.Amrik Singh, Advocate.

OP2 & OP3                             :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Vishal Khullar filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred as Act) against the OPs, by alleging that Op3 are the dealer of product of OP1 and Op2 are the service providers for this product. One Split A.C. of 1.5 Ton capacity of Whirlpool of Model Delux WASR18B28D0 alongwith voltage stabilizer of 4KV was purchased by the complainant from OP3 for consideration of Rs.26,000/- vide invoice No.5328 dated 27.02.2010. The said product was manufactured by OP1. Complainant was informed that product purchased by him was best available in the range and due service will be provided. Warranty of 5 years was given on the compressor of this product. Since from the purchase, this A.C. started giving problems. OP3 charged Rs.1000/- for installation and a stand wall mount. There was some problem in the compressor due to which, A.C. was not giving cooling. After numerous visit to office of OP3, compliant was lodged on 24.4.2010 and thereafter, representative of OP1 paid visit and changed the gas set. Complaint of defective compressor was not heeded to. A.C. started emitting noise and thereafter, complaint of complainant was registered on 29.4.2010. However, representative of OPs termed it to be outdoor fixation problem. Fixation was done, but despite that problem in the compressor or of sound/noise and of no cooling remained. Subsequent complaints of 17.05.2010 and 16.8.2010 did not yield any result. Ops kept on charging from the complainant for visits of their representatives. Advice was tendered to the complainant to get the service of AC done by which defects may get OK. Complainant got the service of AC done on 25.5.2012 by paying charges. One month thereafter, the AC stopped working resulting in discomfort and mental agony to complainant. Complaint dated 11.6.2012 got registered by complainant was attended on 12.6.2012. Compressor of AC has not been changed despite asking by the complainant. However, OPs trying to claim as if compressor is not defective, so as to avoid replacement of the defective part. On 14.9.2012, the AC again stopped working because of defect in compressor. Problem was admitted by Ops, but no effort was made to replace the defective compressor. On 14.9.2012, OPs called back AC to their workshop and thereafter, they claimed as if all the problems have been removed and now the AC is as good as a new one. Said AC was installed back on 20.9.2012 at about 9:00 PM, but representative of OPs refused to provide the customer copy of the report. Thereafter, complainant gave call on number 1860-180-4558 on 21.9.2012 for asking for the copy of the report, but the same has not been provided. After working for few hours the AC again started emitting noise, but despite complaint and repeated reminders, no engineer has visited for attending the complaint. Rather, complainant started receiving messages as if “customer refused to pay”. All this was an elaborate ruse to defuse the matter and side track the issue. Complainant had been close tracking all the developments. One Nirmal Singh engineer/owner of OP2 asked complainant to get the gas recharged every year by paying Rs.2400/- per recharge. Complainant kept on sending emails to Ops for taking action. The power Saver stopped working and thereafter, complaint was registered on 4.10.2012. That defect was removed. Thereafter, season came to an end. In next season, the complainant got the AC serviced from OPs on 24.5.2013, but despite that AC was not giving due cooling throughout the year with the result that electricity bills soared high resulting in financial and mental harassment to the complainant. Ultimately, on 16.6.2014, on complaint of complainant, the Ops admitted as if the compressor was defective and undertook to replace the same. Neither the said compressor has been replaced despite the said admission of 19.6.2014 and nor any other alternative remedy made available to the complainant. Complainant sent legal notice through Sh.Ankur Ghai, Advocate on 1.7.2014, but despite that needful has not been done. The compressor which was replaced vide customer code bearing Sr.No.CH0614008957 did not function properly and thereafter, the complainant sent emails. On one occasion, an engineer from concern of OP2 visited house of complainant, but went away by claiming that he will return after some time. However, none turned up later on. Complainant gave telephonic calls from mobile No.96532-88004, but those calls were disconnected every time. Subsequent reminders through email dated 1.8.2014 and 4.8.2014 were sent, but no action taken. So, directions sought to Ops to replace the defective compressor and pay Rs.1 lakh as damages, but Rs.10,000/- as legal expenses.

2.                          In reply field by OP1, it is pleaded interalia that the complaint is not maintainable, being false and frivolous; earlier complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 5.11.2014 without seeking permission to file fresh one; complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands; necessary repairs, adjustments and preventive maintenance was done from time to time; complaints were registered through telephone and after receipt of last complaint on 16.6.2014, the compressor was replaced and complaint was closed on 24.7.2014. Thereafter, no complaint has been registered by the complainant regarding the defect in the AC. Admittedly, the AC in question was purchased by the complainant with comprehensive warranty of one year and additional warranty for compressor of 4 years. The defect in the door, grill etc of AC were noticed and those were adjusted to reduce the noise. After complaint dated 24.5.2012, another complaint was received on 11.9.2012 and not in June, 2012. Complainant refused to get the needful done. Gas charging was done on 14.9.2012, but the complainant refused to pay for the gas charges because comprehensive warranty was upto 27.2.2011. All the documents are not produced  intentionally on record by the complainant. Message regarding refusal to pay is matter of record. Complainant was not ready to pay for gas charges and there was no problem of power saver. Summer season started in March, 2013, but there was no complaint till 26.5.2013. That complaint of 26.5.2013 was regarding service. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.                OP2 and OP3 are ex-parte in this case.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents EX.C1 to Ex.C33 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Mr.Deepak Chugh, Branch Service Manager and even tendered document Ex.OP1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties but oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

7.                Undisputedly the A.C was purchased by the complainant from OP3 through retail invoice Ex.C1. Delivery advice Ex.C2, retail invoice Ex.C3 are the other documents proving such purchase and installation of the AC at the premises of the complainant. Contents of warranty terms Ex.C4 establishes that comprehensive warranty of purchased AC was for 1 year, but extended warranty for compressor was 4 years in addition thereto. The warranty to expire after the expiry of the period referred above from the date of purchase. Gas charges is included only when the compressor is defective or inoperative as per Ex.C4. Gas charging of the said AC was done for the first time on 26.4.2010 as revealed by Ex.C5. Perusal of Ex.C7 reveals that door stand was set on 18.05.2010. So plea taken in the written statement is correct that setting of the door was done for controlling the noise problem. Ex.C9 dated 24.5.2012 is the service request showing that wet service done, but of Ex.C11 of date 14.9.2012 shows as if gas charging was done. Ex.C12 of date 14.9.2012 shows as if problem was of cooling due to which the AC was taken back to workshop. Work on compressor was to be done as per Ex.C12. Ex.C13, the email complaint is of date 1.10.2012. Ex.C14 the service request dated 24.10.2012 is for repair for the problem of power saver not working. As per Ex.C14 sound was also emitted. Ex.C15 of date 24.8.2013 shows  as if wet service done for setting AC. Ex.C16 of date 28.5.2013 shows as if defect was in outdoor and wiring adjust set was the description of the defect. Compressor defect pointed out in Ex.C17, the job sheet of 16.6.2014. Ex.C18 is the email request dated 4.10.2012, but Ex.C19 is the email request dated 5.10.2012. Ex.C20, is the registered notice, which was sent by the complainant through counsel on 1.7.2014 containing all the allegations as are there in the complaint. Ex.C21 to Ex.C24 are the photostat copies of the postal receipts showing dispatch of the notice dated 1.7.2014. Ex.C25 and Ex.C26 are the receipts showing the visit charges of dates 25.6.2011 and 25.5.2012. Ex.C27 is the retail invoice of date 15.9.2012 of gas charges. Ex.C28 of date 28.5.2013 is the retail invoice of service charges, but Ex.C29 is retail invoice of service charges of date 24.8.2013. Ex.C30 is the invoice of labour charges. Ex.C32 is the customer invoice showing that compressor was defective due to which gas charging done and compressor replaced.Through Ex.C33,the email,it was sought to be projected on 30.7.2014 lastly as if the replaced compressor is old one with body rusted. The other job sheets produced on record not legible qua the pointed out defects or the provided services.  All this documentary evidence produced on record by the complainant shows that problem in the compressor was not rectified on each time, but it was done on few occasions. Some repairs were carried out for controlling the noise problem by adjusting the doors. Further, this documentary evidence establishes that after finding the compressor defective on 16.6.2014, the same was replaced. Signatures of complainant on Ex.C32 obtained with endorsement of compressor replaced, but satisfaction recorded therein subject to performance. So certainly the plea taken in the written statement is correct that the compressor was replaced. If really the old rusted compressor would have been put up through job sheet Ex.C32 of 16.6.2014, then the complainant would have made endorsement in that respect thereon. However, no such endorsement recorded by the complainant and as such, the email grievances through Ex.C33 of old rusty compressor is an afterthought. This complaint filed on 26.2.2015, the day on which, the warranty period of the compressor was to come to an end. The defects in the compressor including gas charges to be removed within the warranty period and not thereafter. Those defects in the compressor stood removed on 16.6.2014 and as such, virtually the grievances of the complainant were redressed during the warranty period. Thereafter the complaint dated 16.6.2014 was closed on 24.7.2014 is a fact born from perusal of Ex.OP1 i.e. call intervention detail. Complainant refused to pay for repair on four occasions i.e. 27.9.2012, 26.9.2012 and 11.9.2012 as well as 2.3.2010 is a fact born from perusal of Ex.OP1. So the fault lay upon the complainant in not getting the paid repairs done at appropriate time. For that fault of complainant, he cannot be shielded. As defect in the compressor stood removed within warranty period and grievance of complainant of replacing the compressor with old rusted one is an afterthought and as such, by keeping in view the fact that the complaint filed on the last day of warranty period, the ends of justice warrant that the complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed for, otherwise, anyone may approach this Forum for abusing the process of law.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint merits dismissal and same is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

Dated:  17.08.2015

 

  

                                      (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                                 Member                                      President