2. AARJAY ASSOCIATES, A & A COMPLEX, PALARIVATTOM
KOCHI-682 025., (Adv.K.S.Arundas #35, DD Oceana Mall, Near Taj Gate Way Hotel, Marine Drive, Ernakulam-682 031)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased the Whirlpool refrigerator, Model No. FF2D355-45/2012, believing it to be of high quality based on advertisements and brochures. After eight years of use, the refrigerator stopped working on July 29, 2021. A complaint was promptly filed with the company on July 30, 2021.
A technician, Mr.Eldho, inspected the refrigerator and identified a 'gas blockage' issue. Initially, he quoted a repair cost, but this cost later increased. Subsequently, another technician named Mr. Siddique attempted to repair the refrigerator, but his efforts were in vain. He charged more than the initial quote.
The refrigerator was then taken to the workshop on August 2, 2021, where additional parts were replaced, but the problem persisted. The complainant paid for the transportation of the refrigerator back to their home but received no refund for the previous repair work.
Despite numerous attempts and expenses, the refrigerator remained non-functional, causing considerable inconvenience. The complainant reached out to the company via email and received an apology but no resolution.
The complainant seeks the following reliefs: a. Repair the refrigerator at no additional expense or replace it with a new one. b. Compensation for the inconvenience and expenses incurred. c. Payment for the mental stress and loss of use of the refrigerator.
The complainant emphasizes that they have been without a working refrigerator since July 30, 2021, and neither the company nor the agency has taken adequate steps to rectify the situation. The complainant is seeking compensation and a resolution to the ongoing issue.
2) Notice
The Commission issued notices to the opposite parties, and they duly submitted their version.
THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
The Opposite party No. 1 is M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd, a publicly traded company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office in Pune, Maharashtra, and corporate office in Gurgaon, Haryana. Opposite party No. 2 is a service centre authorized to provide post-purchase service for home appliances manufactured by Opposite party No. 1. The business relationship between the opposing parties is characterized as a principal-to-principal arrangement.
The response to the current complaint contends that it is entirely unfounded, lacking legal merit, and should be dismissed accordingly. The claims made by the complainant do not fall within the definitions of "deficiency in services" and "unfair trade practice" as outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has deliberately omitted crucial information and has filed this complaint with malicious intent, characterizing it as an experimental legal action. The complaint as frivolous and vexatious, with the complainant being fully aware of the unsubstantiated nature of their claims. The complainant's motive is to gain illegitimate benefits from the opposite parties while withholding important facts and wasting the valuable time of the commission. The compensation sought by the complainant lacks any valid basis. The complainant indeed purchased a refrigerator manufactured by them eight years ago, as stated in the complaint. The complainant contacted the opposite party's customer care centre on July 30, 2021, citing "poor cooling" as the issue with the refrigerator. In response, a technician was dispatched to inspect the refrigerator, and the opposite parties discovered a refrigerant gas leak, which they attributed to abnormal or improper use. Given that the product was more than eight years old and out of warranty, the technician addressed the issue on a chargeable basis on July 31, 2021. On August 1, 2021, the complainant once again contacted the customer care centre, reporting continued issues with the refrigerator. Following another inspection, the technician identified a minor part as defective due to abnormal usage. The technician communicated the repair charges and the replacement cost of the part to the complainant, who refused to make payment and displayed discourteous behavior toward the technician. As a gesture of goodwill, the second opposite party refunded the service charges previously collected and returned the refrigerator to the complainant. there has been no deficiency in their services or unfair trade practices. The financial claims made by the complainant are without any legitimate basis and are part of an experimental legal strategy.
Lastly, the opposite parties are prepared to address the refrigerator's defect in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions. The complainant is not entitled to the relief sought in their complaint and requests the dismissal of the case, along with costs.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had not filed a proof affidavit but produced 4 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-4.
Exhibit-A-1: Photocopy of the description of the Whirlpool refrigerator.
Exhibit-A-2: Photocopy of the bill dated 31.7.2021 for Rs. 6,100/- issued by the second opposite party.
Exhibit-A-3: Photocopy of the complaint email sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Exhibit-A-4: Photocopy of the job sheet dated 30.07.2021 issued by the opposite party.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. A Photocopy of the bill dated 31.7.2021 for Rs. 6,100/- issued by the second opposite party. The receipt evidencing payment to the opposite party (Exhibits A-2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant has filed the aforementioned case, seeking compensation for a service deficiency arising from the opposite party's failure, which led to inadequate service provision. They stress that they have been without a functional refrigerator since July 30, 2021, and assert that neither the company nor the agency has taken sufficient measures to address the problem. The complainant's primary objectives are to secure compensation and a resolution to this ongoing issue.
After hearing the complainant, it was stated that despite making numerous efforts and incurring expenses, the refrigerator continued to be non-functional, leading to significant inconvenience. The complainant attempted to contact the company through email but only received an apology without a satisfactory resolution.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties, that the opposite parties strongly dispute the validity of the complainant's case. They argue that the complainant's claims, seeking compensation, lack legal merit and should be dismissed. According to the opposite parties, the complainant's allegations of "deficiency in services" and "unfair trade practice" do not align with the definitions outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, they accuse the complainant of withholding vital information, filing the complaint with malicious intent as an experimental legal tactic, and wasting the commission's time. The opposite parties emphasize that the complainant's motivation appears to be gaining illegitimate benefits while disregarding important facts. They also contest the validity of the compensation sought by the complainant.
Regarding the refrigerator issue, it is acknowledged that the complainant purchased the appliance from the opposite parties eight years ago. The complainant contacted the company's customer care centre due to "poor cooling" on July 30, 2021. A technician was dispatched to inspect the refrigerator, which led to the discovery of a refrigerant gas leak attributed to abnormal use. Since the product was out of warranty and over eight years old, the technician addressed the issue on a chargeable basis on July 31, 2021. On August 1, 2021, the complainant reported ongoing issues, and another inspection revealed a minor part defect, also attributed to abnormal usage. The technician communicated the repair charges and part replacement cost to the complainant, who refused to pay and displayed discourteous behaviour. The second opposite party refunded the previously collected service charges and returned the refrigerator as a goodwill gesture. The opposite parties contend that there was no deficiency in their services or unfair trade practices, and they argue that the complainant's financial claims lack a valid basis. They express their readiness to address the defect as per warranty terms and conditions and request the dismissal of the case, along with costs.
In the matter brought before this Commission, the complainant has sought compensation, for what they perceive as a deficiency in the services provided by the opposite parties. The complainant alleges that their Whirlpool refrigerator, which was believed to be of high quality based on advertisements and brochures, stopped working on July 29, 2021. The complainant promptly registered a complaint with the company on July 30, 2021.
Upon inspection, it was determined that the refrigerator had a 'gas blockage' issue. Subsequently, repair costs were initially quoted and later increased. Despite attempts by a technician named Mr. Siddique to address the problem, the refrigerator remained non-functional, leading to further expenses for the complainant. The refrigerator was taken to the workshop, and additional parts were replaced, but the issue persisted. The complainant paid for the transportation of the refrigerator back to their home but received no refund for the previous repair work. The complainant contends that they have been without a working refrigerator since July 30, 2021, and that neither the company nor the agency has adequately resolved the situation. The complainant seeks compensation, a resolution to the ongoing issue, and reimbursement for expenses incurred.
In response, the opposite parties, have vehemently denied the complainant's claims. They argue that the complainant's allegations do not fall within the definitions of "deficiency in services" and "unfair trade practice" as outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties contend that the complainant has filed this complaint with malicious intent, characterizing it as an experimental legal action and that the compensation sought lacks a valid basis. They assert that the refrigerator's issues were addressed in accordance with the age of the product and the applicable warranty terms.
After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, this Commission finds that the complainant is indeed a consumer who has sought redress for a perceived deficiency in services. The complainant's assertion that they have been without a functional refrigerator since July 30, 2021, and that their attempts to have the issue resolved have been fruitless, deserves attention.
However, it is essential to weigh the complainant's claims against the evidence and the response of the opposite parties. While the complainant has undoubtedly experienced inconvenience and financial burdens due to the non-functionality of the refrigerator, the opposite parties contend that they addressed the issue in line with the age and warranty status of the product. It appears that the opposite parties have offered a goodwill gesture by refunding previously collected service charges.
Given the conflicting claims and the absence of clear evidence that the opposite parties were negligent in providing service, it is challenging to establish a clear case of "deficiency in services" or "unfair trade practice" as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has not made any effort to substantiate his case by providing evidence to the Commission. Additionally, it is noted that the complainant has not submitted a proof affidavit.
A series of legal precedents, such as the case of SGS India Ltd vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), have consistently upheld that the onus of proving negligence or service deficiency rests upon the complainant, necessitating the presentation of evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence alone do not suffice to substantiate the complainant's argument. Therefore, in this case, the complainant has not succeeded in demonstrating any service deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In the above circumstances the complainant has not established any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party and therefore the complaint is only to be dismissed and hence the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this is the 16th day of September 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
uk/
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit-A-1: Photocopy of the description of the Whirlpool refrigerator.
Exhibit-A-2: Photocopy of the bill dated 31.7.2021 for Rs. 6,100/- issued by the second opposite party.
Exhibit-A-3: Photocopy of the complaint email sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Exhibit-A-4: Photocopy of the job sheet dated 30.07.2021 issued by the opposite party.
