MR. PRABODHA KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT:-             

                         This C.C.Case No. 48/2022 filed on consumer online E-Daakhil Portal by a consumer working at Bangalore & his permanent residence of Rajnagar in Kendrapara District. The Office of this Commission sent notice through postal address & sufficiently received by Op No.1 & 2. The Op No.1 appeared through Ld. Advocate & filed written version on dt. 24.11.2022. We are adjudicating the same today to keep pace with speedy disposal of consumer grievances at this Commission to follow the mandate of C.P.Act, 2019.

Brief Fact:-

                        The Complainant purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator on 28^th April 2018 from a Shop. After two years the same Refrigerato malfunctioned then the Complainant complained to Whirlpool Company for removal of defect accordingly the Company referred the complain to local service centre Sairam Refrigeration, Kendrapara at Tinimuhani who sent unskilled technician several times and caused damaged to the refrigerator instead of rectifying its defect, the same allegation raised before Company as well as authorized service centre but in they are deafear towards the Complainant.

                        Heard the Complainant by VC, perused materials filed by Op No.1 & the Op No.2 is set ex-parte for adjudication we framed the following issues.

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act?
2. Whether the complaint filed within period of limitation?
3. Whether the OpNo.1 & 2 are committed deficiency of service?
4. Whether the Complainant suffered loss & undergone mental agony for prejudice caused to him by Ops unfair trade practice?
5. Whether the Complainant entitle to reliefs shought?

Issue No.1

               The Complainant purchased a Refrigerator of Whirlpool Company & the same Company should have facility for service throughout the area where it sales its products. The Complainant availed service of Ops when it’s shown defect & it was the duties of Ops to remove such defect by engaging skill technicians but did not complied, therefore Complainant avails services of Op for consideration paid & is consumer under Sec-27(II) of C.P.Act, 2019.

Issue No.2

               Though the electrical equipment shown defect after expiry of warranty, but the Complainant booked complain in 2022 & the Ops sent technician as shown bill annexed provided by OpNo.2 in 09.06.2022 & 27.08.2022 subsequently C.C.Case was filed online, E-daakhil Portal in 2022 well within prescribed limitation period.

Issue No.3

               The OpNo.1 an electrical equipment Company having business all over the State. When the Complainant lodged complain in OpNo.1 online portal then the OpNo.1 forwarded the complain toOpNo.2 the authorized service station of the same at Sairam Refrigeration, authorized service provider of Whirlpool, Livpure, Nasaka, At-Tinimuhani near Toffa Gift Centre, Kendrapara who booked senior technician Rajendra from Paradeep who did not attended the complain. The Whirlpool customer care Madusmita Madam assigned after 15 days a fresher Raju technician who had no experience to service double door refrigerator opined to transport/send the same to Tinimuhani service centre. Finally the unskilled Raju unable to remove the defect backed in his 2^nd attempt. After several complain on consumer help line of OpNo.1 unskilled Raju came 3^rd  times & forced to change cooling apparatus like compressor, condenser, cooling coil, sencer which are not defective but only a gas pipe was blocked which was not within the knowledge of said Raju. Ultimately the said Raju replaced cooling coil, condencer, filled gas & the compressor which have 10 years warranty also replaced. The technician (Raju) without prior permission of owner made hole in backside of the Refrigerator. The technician through its service centre taken Rs. 4500/- on 09.06.2022 & again Rs. 1000/- on 27.08.2022. Then subsequently Papu(technician) said Raju did not rectified the defect actually the gas pipe was blocked and washed by vacuum cleaner. Then OpNo.2 sent Badal who said Raju fitted sancer upright down for which fan motor fitted wrongly every time the technicians demanded unfair amount throughout the 3 months. The Manager Mr. Abinash used unofficial languages when alleges against the above wrongly in bend position. The Ops are deficient in service after payment of consideration for which the C.P.Act in its clear languages prescribed service in Sec-2(42) & deficiency in Sec-2(II) for fault, imperfection, inadequacy in their service to satisfaction of consumer.

Issue No.4

               The Ops are not taken care of Complainant complain to remove the defect from the electrical equipment. The Ops ought to have performed their service with care & caution but negligence/laches by them comes under deficiency, unfair trade practices are liable to provide damage to Complainant as product service provider. The Op in his written version stated that, the Complainant serviced it by local technician which was denied by Complainant. All the spare there are removed are unnecessarily not required but putted the Complainant financial loss and mental agony for which the Complainant came to Kendrapara from distance Bangalore. Further the Complainant produce photocopy of Refrigerator in which back side there is a hole and water are falling from it. OpNo.1 in his written version cited a case of Honbl’e National Commission which only relating to defects in warranty period which has no applicability to case in hand. All the point raised in written version of Ops are devoid of merit and unacceptable to this Commission.

Issue No.5

               After analyzing all aspects of issues from both sides it is desirable that the Complainant should be compensate equally for the arbitrary, illegal activities of both OPNo.1 & 2. If the OpNo.1 product manufacture have no well equip service centre with appropriate skilled technician the same is liable to pay the financial loss as well as mental agony undergone. The Ops are liable under joint liability either provide one new same double-door refrigerator or price of the same with mental agony.

                                                                   O R D E R

                     It is directed that the Ops shall provide a New double door same refrigerator to the Complainant & take back the Complainant’s refrigerator or the Ops shall pay the product price Rs. 28,980/- to the Complainant with Rs. 5000/- for mental agony undergone. Further the Ops shall directed to carryout one among the two alternative orders within one month from received of this order, failing which Ops shall liable under execution proceeding as per C.P.Act,2019.   No order as to cost.

                          Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.           

       Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 28th day of December,2022.             

                              I, agree

                                 Sd/-                                       Sd/-

                           MEMBER                             PRESIDENT