Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainants purchased one Whirpool Refrigerator vide Model : F23 Elite Sl. No. INA051902758 from Nu-Vision having its office at P-147, Lake Town, Block-B, Kolkata – 700089 on 08.03.2006 on payment of Rs. 13,500/-.

          After purchase, the said refrigerator was working properly for six years and thereafter stopped working properly for which complainant made a complaint to the service centre of Whirpool and the technician from Whirpool made a visit to the house of his complainant and after inspection of the refrigerator stated that timer is not working properly and some parts were required to be replaced and accordingly complainant gave his consent for replacing the said damage parts and the technician replaced the said parts for which complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,015/- towards service charges.

          Subsequently the representative of the Whirpool visited the house of the complainant after checking the condition of the refrigerator convinced the complainant for availing of home care plan which would ensure repairing at a low cost and as the said set was 7 years old and on being convinced complainant entered into home care plan by paying Rs. 2,400/- on 22.04.2013 vide cheque No. 987836 dated 22.04.2013 against plan No. 06507763 and the said cheque has been duly encashed from the account of the complainant.

          After a few days from the date of availing of the said scheme, serious noise problem cropped up in the regrigerator and it was not working properly for which complainant again made a complaint to the customer care service of Whirpool and the technician again visited the home of the complainant and informed that the refrigerator has to be taken to the Company for repairing to which complainant gave his consent and the company sent their vehicle for collecting the refrigerator and after 2 or 3 days after repairing duly sent the refrigerator to the home of complainant.

          When the refrigerator was delivered the technician informed that his client should start the refrigerator after 3 or 4 hours as some parts were newly installed and it would take some time for normal working and accordingly complainant after 3-4 hours started the refrigerator and found that it was not cooling, sound problem persisted and no necessary repairing has been made to the refrigerator.  So, complainant made a complaint to the Customer Care Services of Whirpool but they did not respond to the call of complainant and on the contrary they avoided to repair the said refrigerator and threatening the complainant of cancelling the said home care plan.

          Under the Home Care Plan, it is specifically stated that during the terms of Service Plan the Company through its authorized service personnel shall either repair or replace at its own discretion, functional parts necessary to restore the appliance covered by the service plan to operate etc.

          However the company will be concerned only with restoring the covered appliance to working condition and to this effect exercise its discretion in utilizing components that may be different from the components being repaired or replaced in terms of the design specifications, colour, shape and brand.  But complainant made repeated request to the op for causing necessary repair op did not consider though complainant said that it is covered under Home Care Plan.

          Subsequently complainant sent letter through his Ld. Lawyer on 02.07.2013 and made a request for getting the said refrigerator repaired within 10 days failing which the complainant shall have no other alternatives but to file complain before the Consumer Forum on receipt of the notice.  But op did not render any service as per Home Care Plan for which the cause of action for filing the instant application arose on and from 13.07.2013 and for harassing the complainant and not rendering any such service and praying for refund of the entire amount and compensation, litigation cost etc.

          Fact remains in this case notices were duly served upon the ops even after receipt of the notice, op appeared before this Forum and submitted written statement that there was no deficiency of service and as per rules and regulation after five years from the date of purchase of any refrigerator company does not provide any AMC to the customer and further the service engineer inadvertently entered into AMC and in such a situation manufacturing company is not ready to give service to the complainant and they have prayed for settle the case amicably and pass such necessary order.

                                                    Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the entire materials on record and also after considering the entire complaint and written version, it is clear that complainant’s said refrigerator is aged about 8 years old.  Fact remains that due to inadvertence their representative accepted the sum of Rs. 2,400/- on 22.04.2013 vide cheque No. 987836 dated 22.04.2013 for Home Care Plan.  But after five years from the date of purchase, company cannot provide AMC to the customer but due to error of the op’s representative, complainant got such service of Home Care Plan.  But op has already submitted that he is willing to refund the same.

          But considering the fact we are convinced to hold that it is erroneous act of the staff of the op for which op has already admitted the fact.  So in such circumstances we find that there is no question to give any further relief to the complainant and in fact as per company’s rules and regulations – no AMC can be granted after five years from the date of purchase of the unit.  In this regard, it is an error on the part of the representative of the company. 

          So, in the above circumstances, op is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 2,400/- and also a sum of Rs. 500/- as litigation cost and accordingly op is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 2,400/- including litigation cost of Rs. 500/- i.e. total Rs. 2,900/- to the complainant after receipt the copy of this order failing which penal action shall be started against the ops.

          Thus the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                               ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with cost of Rs. 500/-.

          Ops are hereby directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 2,400/- which was received by the representative of the op on 22.04.2013 against the Plan No. 06507763 vide cheque No. 987836 to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt the copy of this order along with cost of Rs. 500/- that is total Rs. 2,900/- within one month from date of receipt of the copy of the order by the op and even after that if it is found that op has violated the order, in that case, op shall be imposed penal damages of Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.

          Ops are directed to comply the order very strictly failing which penal action shall be started against them for which they shall be prosecuted U/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986.