Punjab

Sangrur

CC/77/2016

Mandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirlpool of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri L.K.Singal

03 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 77                                                                                        

                                                                    Instituted on:  07.01.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    03.05.2016

 

Mandeep Kumar son of Surinder Kumar resident of Kishan Bagh Colony, H.No.217, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.Whirlpool of India Ltd., J.P. Arcade Corporation No.45/119, 5th Main Road, Puttanna Chetty Road, Chamrajpat Banglore 560 018 through its Director.

 

2.Modern Radios Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Owner.

 

3.Authorized Service Centre of Whirlpool, Prem Basti Gali No.10, Sangrur through its Incharge/ Manager.

  

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri L.K. Singla  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :     Exparte.                     

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Mandeep Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Whirlpool Washing Machine of 8 Kg. Model 360 Bloom Wash 8013 on cash basis from OP No.2  vide  bill number 5938 dated 18.04.2015 under warrantee of two years.  After three months of  purchase of said machine, it was dead stopped. Intimation was given to OP No.2 on 28.07.2015  who told to approach  OP No.3. Then the complainant approached the OP No.3 who  changed the electric motor of washing machine  but it is still lying dead. Intimation to this effect was again given  to OP No.2 and 3 on 16.09.2015 and 22.09.2015. The complainant then requested the OPs  no. 2 and 3 to replace the said washing machine but they did not do anything. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed either to replace the washing machine of same model or to refund  the amount of Rs.29500/-  along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs did not appear and as such OPs were proceeded exparte on 09.03.2016.

3.             In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant had purchased  Whirlpool Washing Machine  of 8 Kg Model 360 Bloom Wash from OP No.2  for an amount of Rs.29500/- which is evident from  bill number 5938 dated 18.04.2015 which is Ex.C-6 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that after the purchase of three months, the washing machine was dead stopped and intimation in this respect was given to the OPs number 2 and 3 who changed the electric motor of  the same  but it is still lying dead. The complainant  has further stated that  again intimation regarding non-working of the machine was given to the OPs on 16.09.2015  and 22.09.2015.   To prove his version, the complainant has produced on record photostat copy of warranty of two years document which is Ex.C-7.  A legal notice which is Ex.C-3 on record was also sent to the OPs but no response was received by the complainant. The Ops have not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  

5.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that the OPs are deficient in service and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs  to replace  the washing machine in dispute of same model or in the alternative to refund an amount of Rs.29500/- which is price amount of the washing machine  to the complainant subject to return of the defective machine. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses.

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                May 3, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)                                           ( K.C.Sharma)                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                  Member                                                     Member                                                President

 

 

 

BBS/-