District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 538/2022.

 Date of Institution:03.10.2022.

Date of Order:09.05.2023.

Santosh Kumar aged 40 years son of Shri Vishnu Dayal, resident of C/o Rahul Public School, Rajiv Colony, Samaypur Road, Sector-56-A, Ballabgarh, District, Faridabad, Haryana -121004 Aadhar card No. 9234 2896 4905 mobile NO. 8851630649. 

                                                          …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Whirlpool Home Care Promise Plan situated at 27, NIT, Faridabad through its authorized person.

2.                Whirlpool Home Care Promise Plan Corporate office Plot No. 40, Sector-44, Gurgaon Faridabad through its authorized person.

                                                                              …Opposite party

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Complainant in person.

Opposite party No.1 exparte vide order dated 04.01.2023.

                             Sh. Rakesh  Jaiswal, counsel for opposite party No.2.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had taken the whirlpool home care promise plan from the opposite parties on dated 10.032021 for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 10.03.2021 to 10.3.2024 and in this regard the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1999/- to the opposite parties.    During taken the above said plan the freeze was not working properly due to the cooling problem and in this regard the complainant made the complaint to the opposite parties to sort out the above said problem and then representative of the opposite parties came in the house of the complainant and sort the cooling p[problems without any charge,  Later on again problems regarding cooling in respect of the said freeze was persisted and in this regard the complainant made the complaint on 11.08.2022 vide complaint No. SARR11082207449 and on the basis of the said complaint, the representative of the opposite parties came in the house of the complainant on 23.08.2022 and sort out the said problem and also charged the amount of Rs.1000/- from  the complainant .and in this regard the job sheet No. 4568.  The complainant had got no knowledge the AMC also enter in the system of the opposite party on the basis of taken the home care promise plan by the complainant.  Although the opposite party had no right to charge the amount of Rs.1000/- from the complainant.   Thereafter the complainant several times sent the email to the opposite parties to enter the above said plan i.e. AMC in your record and the representative of the opposite party assured to the complainant that the said plan would be recorded in the record of opposite party 2-3 working days but no result came out.   The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                update in respect of the above said plan in your record on the basis of the home care promise plan which was taken by the complainant from the opposite party on 10.03.2021 for a period of 10.3.2021 to 10.3.2024 by way of making/paying an amount of Rs.1999/-.

 b)                pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2  Therefore, opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 are proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.1.2023,.

                   Shri Rakesh Jaiswal, Advocate appeared on 20.02.2023 and filed an application for setting aside the exparte order dated 06.02.2023 against opposite party No.2.  Complainant put his no objection on the application.  In the interest of justice, application is allowed, subject to cost of Rs.1000/- vide order dated 20.02.2023.

3.                Opposite party  No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the AMC of refrigerator manufactured by the answering opposite party had not been entered in the system.  In reply to above allegation, it was stated that the present complaint was a gross misuse of the process of the law.  The complaints lodged by the complainant with opposite party No.2 were properly attended.  Inspite of giving prompt after sale services to the complainant he decided to approach this Hon’ble Commission and started this unwanted litigation.  The obligation of opposite party No.2 under the terms of the warranty/AMC was to set the refrigerator right by the repairing of replacing the defective parts.  The complaint cannot claim for more than he has agreed at the time of  the buying of

the AMC.  Opposite party No.2 had never denied providing it’s after sale service so it cannot be called that here had been deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite parties.  There had been no pending complaint regarding the working of the refrigerator till time  the complainant had filed this complaint on.  The allegation of the complainant in complaint clearly smelled that refrigerator in question the present complaint had been filed without any cause of action. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–Whirlpool Home Care Promise Plan. with the prayer to: a)  update in respect of the above said plan in your record on the basis of the home care promise plan which was taken by the complainant from the opposite party on 10.03.2021 for a period of 10.3.2021 to 10.3.2024 by way of making/paying an amount of Rs.1999/-.  b)          pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.

                    To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.PW1/A – affidavit of Santosh Kumar, Ex.C-1 – Application form-cum-receipt  No. 226909, Ex.C-2 – job sheet No. 4568, Ex.C-3 – emails, Ex.C-4 – Complaints details, Ex.C-5- postal receipts.

                    On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.2 strongly agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party  No.2 Ex.DW1/A

– affidavit of Rishabh Maheshwari S/o Shri A.K.Maheshwari M/s. Whirlpool of India Limited, situated at Plot No. 40, Sector-44, Sector ,Haryana.

7.                As per Ex.C-1 the complainant had taken the Whirlpool Home care promise plan from the opposite parties on dated 10.03.2021 for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 10.03.2021 to 10.03.2024 and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1999/-.   As per complaint No. SAR11082207449 the representative of the opposite parties came in the house  on 23.08.2022  vide job sheet No. 4568  and sort out the said problem and also charged the amount of Rs.1000/- from the complainant.   As per emails vide Ex.C-3 stating “we request you to allow us the time for 2-3 working days to share the AMC documents.”

8.                There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party No.1 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party No.1 has rendered deficient services to the complainant.

9.                In this case, opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer and opposite party No.1 is the dealer of opposite party No.2. They have agreement principal to principal.  Hence, Commission is of the opinion that  both the parties are liable to pay compensation in equal shares.  Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties Nos. 1  & 2 are directed, jointly & severally, to refund the 50% of the invoice amount in equal shares to the complainant.  Taxable amount not refundable. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 jointly & severally, are further directed to pay Rs.22,000/- in equal shares to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony  & harassment. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old freeze to the opposite party after receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  09.05.2023                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.