DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.166 of 2006
Sri Sayed Aftab Husain,
S/o Sri Ajaz Husain,
R/o Near Eye Hospital,
Roopdeha Road, Post- Nanpara,
District- Behraich.
……Complainant
Versus
- Whirlpool of India Ltd.,
YWCA Compound,
13 Rana Pratap Marg,
Lucknow.
- Chanda Radios-1,
Halwasiya Market,
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs for directing the OPs to repair the fridge or if they are unable to repair the fridge then to provide a new fridge in place of the old one and for payment of Rs.18,000.00 as compensation and Rs.2,000.00 as cost of the litigation.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased 165 litre refrigerator of Rs.9,400.00 on 26.03.1999 from OP No.2. According to the booklet of Company, the fridge was having one year warranty and thereafter the OP No.1 was providing the facility of optional service contract against payment of Rs.250.00 as consideration for opting the facility of optional service contract. The fridge has not been working from one and a half
-2-
years against which a complaint was made to OP No.2 and OP No.2 asked the Complainant to contact service station at Lucknow. When the Complainant contacted service station at Lucknow then they asked to contact Sri Ram agency, Behraich. The Complainant made a complaint on 15.10.2005 to Sri Ram Agency, Behraich but they did not repair the fridge and on 04.02.2006 Rs.200.00 taken as service charge and Rs.50.00 taken as conveyance charges was returned to the Complainant and asked the Complainant to contact Lucknow service station. Despite repeated requests of the Complainant the OP No.1 did not repair the fridge and finally on 20.03.2006 they refused to repair the fridge. The OP No.1 is the authorized service center of company and it is the responsibility of OP No.1 to repair the fridge of the company but they did not repair the fridge which is deficiency in service on their part, hence this complaint.
The OP No.1 has filed the reply wherein it is mainly submitted that the OP No.1 is a manufacturing institution and is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in manufacturing of home appliances. OP No.1 has sold the fridge under one year warranty and thereafter the OP No.1 was providing the facility of optional service contract against payment of Rs.250.00 as consideration for opting the facility of optional service contract. The Complainant has not produced the receipt against the payment of consideration for opting the facility of optional service contract. The Complainant has neither alleged the specific defect in the fridge nor filed any authenticated report of the approved laboratory in support of his contention regarding any defect in the fridge etc. The facility of optional service contract is provided for the compressor only and the Complainant has nowhere claimed that the defect is covered under the optional service contract for which he has paid the consideration against valid receipt and is entitled to get rectified the defect.
-3-
In absence of receipt, the Complainant has no relation with the OP No.1 and has no right to claim free after sales services after expiry of one year warranty. It is denied that the fridge in dispute is covered under seven year warranty. The fridge is covered under one year warranty and thereafter free services under the facility of optional service contract is available on payment of Rs.250.00 as consideration. The Complainant has not lodged any complaint and the OP No.1 has not refused to provide its services. The Complainant is not entitled to claim any free services after the warranty period. The Complainant has never requested to provide the service on chargeable basis and the OP No.1 has not refused to provide the same. The OP No.1 is having its authorized service station to provide the after sales services to its customers. The warranty of the fridge has already expired on 25.03.2000. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. They are still ready to inspect the fridge and to set right the same on chargeable basis. The Complainant has filed a false and fictitious complaint and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Notice was issued to the OP No.2 but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte against OP No.2 vide orders passed on 03.08.2006.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 5 documents. The OP No.1 has filed the affidavit of Sri Pawan Garg, Branch Service Manager, M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd.
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the OPs committed deficiency in service in not repairing the fridge and its consequences.
The Complainant has taken the stand that he had purchased a whirlpool refrigerator from OP No.2 on 26.03.1999. There was complete warranty of one year and 6
-4-
years optional service contract on payment of Rs.250.00 and hence 7 years warranty for repair on the fridge. The Complainant’s fridge has been defective for the last about one and a half years from filing of the case and when he contacted the dealer then he was given a phone No. but when he contacted on that phone then the OP No.1 told the Complainant that he could complain about the fridge in Behraich only with Sri Ram Agency but when he made a complaint to the aforesaid agency on 15.01.2005 then they did not repair and also returned Rs.250.00 deposited by him on 04.02.2006 and asked the Complainant to contact at Lucknow service station. The Complainant contacted OP No.1 but they did not repair the fridge. The OP No.1 is the company’s authorised service centre, therefore they are bound to repair the fridge within the warranty and therefore they have committed deficiency in service in not repairing the same. The Complainant has filed photocopies of the receipt of purchase of the fridge from OP No.2 wherefrom it is clear that the Complainant purchased a whirlpool fridge for a sum of Rs.9,400.00. The Complainant has also filed a photocopy of the warranty document wherein it is mentioned that there is a complete warranty on refrigerator for one year and 6 years optional service contract for the refrigerator sealed system at Rs.250.00. The stand of the OPs is that the Complainant had not paid Rs.250.00 for having this 6 years optional warranty and as the fridge became defective after full warranty of one year, therefore there is no warranty after the expiry of one year as the Complainant had not paid Rs.250.00 required for 6 years optional service contract. The Complainant has taken the stand that the demand of Rs.250.00 for 6 years additional warranty was not made otherwise he would have paid Rs.250.00 also but from that it is clear that the Complainant had not paid Rs.250.00 for getting that 6 years optional service contract, therefore it cannot be said that the Complainant has
-5-
had the free service warranty after completion of one year when the Complainant’s fridge became defective but here a question arises as to whether the OPs demanded money from the Complainant to repair the fridge and he refused. From the record, it transpires that the Complainant was first asked to contact Sri Ram agency for repair of the fridge and that the Sri Ram agency had taken Rs.250.00 for the service charges but they did not repair the fridge and returned the amount to the Complainant asking him to contact service centre at Lucknow. From the record, it is also clear that the OP No.1 did not repair the fridge on the ground that there was no free service contract and therefore there was no question of repairing the fridge free of cost but important question is whether the OP No.1demanded any money for repairing the fridge because repairing of the fridge is paramount and if the service centre demands money as the period of warranty has lapsed then the customer has to pay the repairing charges but in the instant case the OP No.1 does not state that they demanded charges for repairing the fridge as the warranty period has lapsed. It is astonishing that the OP No.1 states that the Complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to show that there is any defect in the fridge. Had there been no defect then the Complainant would not have been running around and the OP No.1 would not have directed him to contact at Sri Ram Agency at Behraich and Sri Ram Agency would not have directed the Complainant to contact service station at Lucknow only. The fact as borne out of the records is, that the Complainant had been running around but his fridge was not repaired. The OPs should have repaired the fridge and should have demanded the money for repairing the fridge of the Complainant but instead they did not repair the fridge on the ground that there was no valid warranty for the period when the fridge became defective. The OP No.1 therefore appears to have committed deficiency in service to the extent that they
-6-
did not repair the fridge on payment of charges. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to get his fridge repaired on payment of charges from OP No.1 but as the Complainant has been much harassed in this regard, hence he is entitled to compensation from OP No.1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it proper to award compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000.00 and cost of litigation of Rs.3,000.00.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OP No.1 is directed to repair the fridge of the Complainant on payment of charges.
The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation.
The compliance of the order is to be made within a month. Out of the amount awarded as compensation and cost of litigation, the charges for the repair may be adjusted.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President
Dated: 30 November, 2015
