Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Whirlpool India

  1. #1
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default Whirlpool India

    Appeal no. FA-08/754

    (Appeal against the order dated 09.06.2008 passed by District Forum-X, in complaint case no. 1356/2005)

    Shri Anil Khurana,

    S/o Shri S.P. Khurana,

    R/o 49, Greater Kailash-I,

    New Delhi-110048.

    …..Appellant/Complainant.

    through

    Ms. Shika Sapra, Advocate


    VS

    1. M/s Whirlpool India Ltd.,

    Through its Managing Director/

    Principal Officer,

    B-227, Greater Kailash-I,

    New Delhi-110048.



    Second address :-

    4-8, Vaipalik , USO Road,

    Qutab Institutional Area,

    New Delhi-110067.



    2. M/s Jeevan Jee Refrigeration Engineers,

    K-40, Lajpat Nagar-II,

    New Delhi-110024.

    ……Respondents/Ops

    CORAM



    Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President.

    M.L. Sahni, Member



    1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the

    judgment?



    2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

    M.L. SAHNI, MEMBER



    1. Dis-satisfied with the order dated 09.06.2008 passed by the District Forum-X, New Delhi, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) has preferred this appeal before us, praying, inter-alia , for quashing and setting aside the findings , observations, order of the District Forum to the extent it has dismissed the complaint against Respondent-2 as not maintainable ; and allow compensation to the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 58,700/- (which includes Rs. 27,700/- towards the cost of refrigerator in question, Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation) with an interest @ 24 % p.a. w.e.f.02.07.2003 instead of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum.

    2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Appellant are that on 02.07.2003 appellant purchased a Whirlpool 400 liters refrigerator from M/s Jeevan Jee Refrigeration Engineers (Respondent-2) for Rs. 27,700/-; that immediately after installation the refrigerator started giving trouble as cooling was ineffective. The appellant lodged complaint no. 2040123 with the Respondent-1 and on 9.7.2003 the PCB assembly of the said refrigerator was put under observation. On 15.05.2004 vide complaint number 2939245, the refrigerator was again put under observation. On 18.06.2004, the drier and PCB of the said refrigerator were found defective and pursuant to complaint no. 3051521 the same were changed . Gas of the said refrigerator was also changed. The said refrigerator still did not function properly and on 7.7.2004 pursuant to complaint no. 31123527 the oil in the said refrigerator was changed. The said refrigerator was finally replaced on 30.7.2004. Despite, the replacement the Appellant was not at ease for a long time, as even the new refrigerator kept on giving troubles. As a lost resort on 24.6.2004, vide complaint no. 4179577, technician of Respondent no. 1 visited the Appellants residence and observed that compressor of the new refrigerator was faulty and hence required a change. Compressor was finally changed on 6.7.2004. However, the change of the compressor was not of much help, as on 9.7.2004, the technician of respondent no. 1 visited and observed a gas leakage in the said refrigerator. On 11.7.2004, Appellant called up Respondent no. 1 and requested for a refund of amount invested by him in the purchase of the said refrigerator. A written representation to Respondent no. 1 on 12.7.2005 was also made with claim of Rs. 58,700/- but no action was taken to re-dress the grievance of the Appellant. The appellant served upon the Respondents a legal notice dated 19.7.2004, allegedly received by them on 20.07.2005. On 16.09.2005 the Appellant preferred a complaint bearing no. 1356/2005 before the District Forum praying, that Respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 58,700/- with interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 2.7.2003.

    3. The Ld. District Forum, while passing the impugned order, dismissed the complaint as against Respondent-2, and directed Respondent-I to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Appellant as compensation including the cost for gas change in the Refrigerator.

    4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone- through the impugned order carefully. We have also perused the case- law submitted on behalf of the Appellant.

    5. From the facts, as stated by the Appellant himself, we hardly find any justification to interfere with the findings recorded by the Ld. District Forum. We fully agree that after replacement of the refrigerator by Respondent no. 1 on 30.7.2004 directly liability of Respondent no. 2 ceased and the Appellant cannot have any grouse or grievance against them. We also find no fault with the impugned order holding that gas leakage cannot be termed as alleged manufacturing defect to entitle the Appellant for another replacement of the Refrigerator again in lieu of the one purchased on 2.7.2003 replaced exactly after 13 months, compressor of which had also been replaced on 6.7.2005 after full one year of use by the Appellant, who appears us a disgruntled lot. It is also noteworthy that the Appellant did not produce any evidence in the form of expert opinion to prove manufacturing defect in the replaced refrigerator, before the Ld. District Forum, who further mentioned that “ before hearing the final arguments, we had also directed the respondent to send its mechanic to the house of the complainant to inspect the fridge/refrigerator and submit report. The respondent-1, accordingly, sent its mechanic to the house of the complainant , who, after inspection, filed the report. The said report states that the refrigerator was otherwise OK except that there was gas choke. Complainant did not file any objections to the aforesaid report. There is no other defects in the refrigerator”.

    6. The Ld. District Forum has , therefore, rightly declined ordering replacement of the Refrigerator in this case. The case law as relied upon by the Appellant does not support his allegations, because facts of the cited cases are totally different to those of his case. We find no deficiency-in-service on the part of either of the Respondents, who in the given circumstances did their utmost to redress the grievance of the Appellant. Still the Appellant has been awarded compensation as a gesture of magnanimity by the District Forum.

    7. We find no merit at all in this appeal, which deserves dismissal with cost, but we refrain to do so. Appeal is dismissed.

    8. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and , thereafter , the file be consigned to Record Room.

  2. #2
    Koteswara Rao is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1

    Angry Same problem with my fridge

    I have also purchased a fridge of 400 liters. Since the last 5 months I have been calling them for repair but was of little help. Dispite 100's of calls my request is still open but nobody is able to repair it. Is it a rocket science for whirlpool to repair its own products! In the last visit the technician said it 6th sense(one of the main feature ) is defective and disabled it but it still does not work! It forms ice near the compressor but not inside! They replaced everything they could charging me almost Rs 7000/- but still it does not work!!! When in other countries the companies recall if they found a problem with a certain model why cannot they do it here in india? Is our law so lax that they dump their failed model in India?

    Quote Originally Posted by adv.singh View Post
    Appeal no. FA-08/754

    (Appeal against the order dated 09.06.2008 passed by District Forum-X, in complaint case no. 1356/2005)

    Shri Anil Khurana,

    S/o Shri S.P. Khurana,

    R/o 49, Greater Kailash-I,

    New Delhi-110048.

    …..Appellant/Complainant.

    through

    Ms. Shika Sapra, Advocate


    VS

    1. M/s Whirlpool India Ltd.,

    Through its Managing Director/

    Principal Officer,

    B-227, Greater Kailash-I,

    New Delhi-110048.



    Second address :-

    4-8, Vaipalik , USO Road,

    Qutab Institutional Area,

    New Delhi-110067.



    2. M/s Jeevan Jee Refrigeration Engineers,

    K-40, Lajpat Nagar-II,

    New Delhi-110024.

    ……Respondents/Ops

    CORAM



    Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President.

    M.L. Sahni, Member



    1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the

    judgment?



    2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

    M.L. SAHNI, MEMBER



    1. Dis-satisfied with the order dated 09.06.2008 passed by the District Forum-X, New Delhi, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) has preferred this appeal before us, praying, inter-alia , for quashing and setting aside the findings , observations, order of the District Forum to the extent it has dismissed the complaint against Respondent-2 as not maintainable ; and allow compensation to the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 58,700/- (which includes Rs. 27,700/- towards the cost of refrigerator in question, Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation) with an interest @ 24 % p.a. w.e.f.02.07.2003 instead of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum.

    2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Appellant are that on 02.07.2003 appellant purchased a Whirlpool 400 liters refrigerator from M/s Jeevan Jee Refrigeration Engineers (Respondent-2) for Rs. 27,700/-; that immediately after installation the refrigerator started giving trouble as cooling was ineffective. The appellant lodged complaint no. 2040123 with the Respondent-1 and on 9.7.2003 the PCB assembly of the said refrigerator was put under observation. On 15.05.2004 vide complaint number 2939245, the refrigerator was again put under observation. On 18.06.2004, the drier and PCB of the said refrigerator were found defective and pursuant to complaint no. 3051521 the same were changed . Gas of the said refrigerator was also changed. The said refrigerator still did not function properly and on 7.7.2004 pursuant to complaint no. 31123527 the oil in the said refrigerator was changed. The said refrigerator was finally replaced on 30.7.2004. Despite, the replacement the Appellant was not at ease for a long time, as even the new refrigerator kept on giving troubles. As a lost resort on 24.6.2004, vide complaint no. 4179577, technician of Respondent no. 1 visited the Appellants residence and observed that compressor of the new refrigerator was faulty and hence required a change. Compressor was finally changed on 6.7.2004. However, the change of the compressor was not of much help, as on 9.7.2004, the technician of respondent no. 1 visited and observed a gas leakage in the said refrigerator. On 11.7.2004, Appellant called up Respondent no. 1 and requested for a refund of amount invested by him in the purchase of the said refrigerator. A written representation to Respondent no. 1 on 12.7.2005 was also made with claim of Rs. 58,700/- but no action was taken to re-dress the grievance of the Appellant. The appellant served upon the Respondents a legal notice dated 19.7.2004, allegedly received by them on 20.07.2005. On 16.09.2005 the Appellant preferred a complaint bearing no. 1356/2005 before the District Forum praying, that Respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 58,700/- with interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 2.7.2003.

    3. The Ld. District Forum, while passing the impugned order, dismissed the complaint as against Respondent-2, and directed Respondent-I to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Appellant as compensation including the cost for gas change in the Refrigerator.

    4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone- through the impugned order carefully. We have also perused the case- law submitted on behalf of the Appellant.

    5. From the facts, as stated by the Appellant himself, we hardly find any justification to interfere with the findings recorded by the Ld. District Forum. We fully agree that after replacement of the refrigerator by Respondent no. 1 on 30.7.2004 directly liability of Respondent no. 2 ceased and the Appellant cannot have any grouse or grievance against them. We also find no fault with the impugned order holding that gas leakage cannot be termed as alleged manufacturing defect to entitle the Appellant for another replacement of the Refrigerator again in lieu of the one purchased on 2.7.2003 replaced exactly after 13 months, compressor of which had also been replaced on 6.7.2005 after full one year of use by the Appellant, who appears us a disgruntled lot. It is also noteworthy that the Appellant did not produce any evidence in the form of expert opinion to prove manufacturing defect in the replaced refrigerator, before the Ld. District Forum, who further mentioned that “ before hearing the final arguments, we had also directed the respondent to send its mechanic to the house of the complainant to inspect the fridge/refrigerator and submit report. The respondent-1, accordingly, sent its mechanic to the house of the complainant , who, after inspection, filed the report. The said report states that the refrigerator was otherwise OK except that there was gas choke. Complainant did not file any objections to the aforesaid report. There is no other defects in the refrigerator”.

    6. The Ld. District Forum has , therefore, rightly declined ordering replacement of the Refrigerator in this case. The case law as relied upon by the Appellant does not support his allegations, because facts of the cited cases are totally different to those of his case. We find no deficiency-in-service on the part of either of the Respondents, who in the given circumstances did their utmost to redress the grievance of the Appellant. Still the Appellant has been awarded compensation as a gesture of magnanimity by the District Forum.

    7. We find no merit at all in this appeal, which deserves dismissal with cost, but we refrain to do so. Appeal is dismissed.

    8. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and , thereafter , the file be consigned to Record Room.

  3. #3
    Advocate.sonia's Avatar
    Advocate.sonia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Hello,

    The above mentioned post is judgment, if you have any problem with Whirlpool then we suggest you to first registered your complaint with their customer care and if the customer care people get fail to provide you the solution the send a written notice to the CMD of Whirlpool via registered post (Keep one copy with you).

    You can visit : Notice before filing consumer complaint for notice reference.

    If still have a question then feel free to contact us again.

  4. #4
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Complaint No. 145/17.6.2009

    Decided on : 19.11.2009.


    Sh. Sudama Ram son of Sh. Hem Raj (Bhame Wala), resident of Jawaharke Road, Opposite Bugi Walaiti Wali Gali, Mansa, Tehsil & District Mansa. ..... Complainant.

    VERSUS


    1. Ganesh Electronics, Gaushala Road, Mansa, through its Proprietor/Partner.

    2. Whirlpool of India Limited, Plot No. 40, Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana), through its Managing Director.

    ..... Opposite Parties..


    Complaint under Section 12 of the

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    .....

    Present: Sh. Sushil Kumar Singla, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

    Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

    Sh. Vishavpreet Garg, Advocate counsel for OP No. 2.

    Quorum: Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President.

    Sh. Sarat Chander, Member.

    Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member.

    ORDER:-


    Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President.

    1. This complaint, has been filed, by Sh. Sudama Ram son of Sh. Hem Raj, resident of Mansa, under Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against M/s Ganesh Electronics, Mansa, through its proprietor/partner and Whirlpool of India Limited, Gurgaon (Haryana), for replacement of fridge, purchased by him and for payment of compensation, in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of filing of the complaint, in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Briefly stated, the case of

    Contd....2....

    : 2 :


    the complainant, is as under:-

    2. That on 20.3.2003, he purchased a fridge, for Rs. 7,950/-, vide purchase invoice No. 4011 dated 20.3.2003, manufactured by OP No. 2, from OP No. 1, who is dealer of manufacturing company, as such he is "Consumer" qua the said refrigerator, under both the opposite parties, who had given warranty for six years, for effecting repairs, in the compressor and for one year remaining parts of the fridge purchased, by the complainant, developed defect, after a period of two months and stopped freezing the ice. The complainant lodged complaints, on telephone, with OP No. 1, on 26.5.2003 and 30.5.2003, but he could not remove the same. The complainant then lodged a complaint with OP No. 2 on 2.6.2003, in his office at Chandigarh, on telephone, after which his representative give him telephone number of service centre of, manufacturing company, situated at Rampuraphul. The complainant contacted the said service station, on telephone. After some days, employees of service station of manufacturer company, visited the premises of the complainant and removed the defect, in his fridge, but they charged some amount from him, for the service, but did not give him, copy of job card nor any receipt, for payment, made by him, despite demand made by him. The fridge of the complainant again stopped functioning and he made another complaint, on 2.4.2004, on telephone to OP No. 1. He continued to, report the defects every year, since the date of purchase, as and when the fridge purchased, by him stopped functioning. The mechanic of opposite parties, used to put the fridge in order, by replacement of motor, against payment but about 2 years period of the complaint, the fridge of the complainant again developed defect, about which he made a complaint, to the OP No. 1, who

    Contd....3....

    : 3 :


    instead of removal of the defect, misbehaved with him. The complainant reported the matter, on mobile phone No. 98150-28858, to Sh. Parminder Singh, Incharge of service centre of manufacturing company at Rampuraphul, from his own mobile phone No. 98720-69572, but even he did not pay any heed to his requests. This led the complainant, to lodge a complaint, on 2.6.2009, at about 3.00 PM, to manufacturing company, on telephone No. 0609001387, after which a mechanic was sent from service station, to his house, on 11.6.2009, to replace the motor, against payment of Rs. 850/-, but said mechanic refused to give any receipt. However he told the complainant, that job card will be sent, by the manufacturing company, but it has not been received, by him till date and his fridge has again stopped functioning, after a period of 2 months and service station of manufacturing company, has not given any satisfactory answer to the complaint, lodged by him. As such there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, because of which the complainant has been subjected to, mental and physical harassment. Hence the complaint.

    3. On being put to notice, the opposite party No. 1, filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the fridge purchased, by the complainant, on 20.3.2003 and warranty period of motor of fridge was given, for a period of 6 years and for remaining parts, for a period of one year, has expired, as such, the complainant has no locus standi, to file the complaint; that the warranty, if any on fridge sold by the manufacturing company, as such he is no person of liability, in terms thereof, running the fridge reported, by the complainant. On merits, the factum of the sale of the fridge has been admitted. It is denied, that he made any complaint, with OP No. 1. It is submitted, that manufacturing

    Contd....4....

    : 4 :


    company, has provided facility, to the Consumers, to lodge complaints, in fridges on internet, to its service station, at Rampuraphul but complainant did not lodge any such complaint with the service station of manufacturing company; that the register, for filing of the complaints, has also been maintained, by the answering opposite party, in his premises; that the complainant has not lodged any complaint even with him and did not inform the answering opposite party, about replacement of motor of his fridge, by service centre of manufacturing company, but he concocted a false version, who projected the same, in this Forum, with intention to harass the opposite parties. It is denied, that there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the answering opposite party. Rest of the averments made, in the complaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint, was made with costs.

    4. The OP No. 2 filed, separate written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has not approached this Forum, with clean hands and has filed vague, false and frivolous complaint, by concocting false version; that the complaint is not maintainable, because there was no manufacturing defect, in the fridge purchased, by the complainant has been reported during period of comprehensive warranty, which has expired on 19.3.2004, for all the parts except compressor, which is still covered, by the terms and conditions of the warranty; that the complainant has not attached, with the complaint, any report of the expert, from the approved laboratory, regarding manufacturing defect, in the fridge purchased, by him and has filed this complaint with malafide intention. On merits, the factum of purchase is not specifically denied and it is submitted, that this is a matter of record,

    Contd....5....

    : 5 :


    for which the complainant, be put to strict proof. It is denied, for want of knowledge, if any complaint was lodged, by the complainant, with the OP No. 1, within the warranty period, about any defect in his fridge. However, it is submitted, that OP No. 2, received a complaint, from the complainant on 2.6.2009, which was registered, in his office, as complaint no. CH0609001387. It is also contended, that service executive was sent to the premises of the complainant, through authorized service station of the answering opposite party and the said official found, that pipe of the fridge purchased, by the complainant has been tempered with, by some local mechanic and complainant refused to, make payment of charges, for repair of fridge, but as a good gesture Sh. Neeraj Dhadwal, Territory Service Executive of the answering opposite party, asked the authorized service station, to set right the fridge, as per terms and conditions of the warranty and compressor of the fridge purchased, by the complainant was replaced. It is submitted, that some amount was charged, for replacement of relay, OLP and gas charges, from the complainant, in terms of his complaint No. CH0609010662, lodged by the complainant, who expressed his satisfaction, on the job card, repair and claim form, by appending his signatures, on 16.6.2009. It is denied, that the complainant has lodged any complaint, with the service station of the answering opposite party, on 18.6.2009. It is submitted, that the obligation of the answering opposite party, as per terms and conditions of the warranty, to set right the fridge, by affecting repair or replacement including compressor and answering opposite party is still ready and willing to, remove the defect, if any, in compressor of the fridge purchased, by the complainant., but it is denied, that there is any deficiency in service, on his part or the complainant has

    Contd....6....

    : 6 :


    been subjected to, mental and physical harassment. Rest of the averments made in the complaint were denied and a prayer, for dismissal of complaint, was made with costs.

    5. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant, furnished his affidavit and photo copies of documents Ext. C-1 to C-9 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh. Parveen Kumar, Affidavit of Sh. Satnam Singh and photo copies of documents, Ext. OP-1 to OP-5 and closed their evidence.

    6. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance.

    7. At the out set, learned counsel, for the complainant, has drawn our attention, to receipts Ext. C-6, C-7 and copy of job card, produced on record, by the opposite parties, showing, that on his complaint, fridge purchased, by the complainant, has been repaired, more than twice, but defect, has not been rectified, because of which it is not freezing the ice. Learned counsel has also submitted, that there is no evidence to establish, that the complainant himself, tempered with the fridge or got it repaired, from other person, as such manufacturer company, cannot escape, liability to replace or pay the amount of consideration, to the complainant, alongwith compensation and costs demanded, by him. Learned counsel has also argued, that Ext. OP-4 is undated document, which has been created, by the opposite parties, after filing of the complaint, whereas the complainant, has tendered in evidence, report of mechanic, wherein he has categorically stated, that compressor, OLP and relay, were defective and

    Contd....7....

    : 7 :


    freezer is leaking, whereas neither the opposite parties, have availed the opportunity, to cross examine the mechanic nor he has produced evidence in rebuttal.

    8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No. 1, Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate, has submitted, that fridge has been sold, to the complainant, by his client, in the capacity, as dealer of the manufacturing company, as such no liability, can be fastened upon him, for manufacturing or other defect especially when neither the complainant, nor manufacturing company has stated, that he or any of his mechanic, has made any attempt to remove the defects.

    9. Learned counsel for the complainant, has gracefully conceded, that OP No. 1 cannot be held liable, for any manufacturing defect in the fridge purchased, by the complainant, from him.

    10. At this stage, learned counsel for the OP No. 2, has submitted, that instant case is result of collusion, between the complainant and OP No. 1, as such liability cannot be shifted, upon manufacturing company. 11. We find merit, in the argument advanced, by the learned counsel for the OP No. 1, because as per admitted fact, he has sold the fridge, to the complainant, for consideration, in the capacity of dealer of manufacturing company and there is no allegation, by the complainant or by manufacturing company, that either OP No. 1 himself or any mechanic employed by him, has ever attended, any complaint, for rectification of defects, in the fridge purchased, by the complainant. Therefore, in our opinion, no liability, can be fastened upon OP No. 1, for any manufacturing defect, in the fridge purchased, by the complainant or even any other defect especially when as per the averments, made in the written

    Contd....8....

    : 8 :


    version of OP No. 2, the complaints made, by the consumers are attended, by his service station. The warranty has been given, for successful functioning of the fridge, by the dealer, on behalf of manufacturing company. The factum of fridge purchased, by the complainant, from OP No. 1, is otherwise proved, from copy of purchased invoice, Ext. C-4 and also from Ext. OP-6. In the result, the complaint against OP No. 1, deserves to be dismissed.

    12. Learned counsel for the OP No. 2, has argued, that as per own version of the complainant, he had purchased the fridge, on 26.3.2003, but he has filed, the complaint on 17.6.2009 i.e. after expiry of period of limitation of two years, provided in Section 24-A of the Act. Learned counsel has argued, that as submitted in the complaint itself, the defect in the fridge, came to the notice of the complainant, two months after purchase thereof, as such the complaint is liable, to be dismissed, being barred by limitation.

    13. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended, that opposite parties have mentioned, in their written version, that fridge purchased, by the complainant, was set right, on the basis of complaint made, on 2.6.2009 and its compressor and other parts including OLP and gas charger, were replaced, on the basis of another complaint, on 16.6.2009, by his service station. Learned counsel has argued, that complainant has produced, several documents, that he has been making the complaints, since the date of purchase of the fridge, defect in which are still not removed, as such, the complaint is well within the period of limitation.

    14. The argument advanced, by the learned counsel, for the

    Contd....9....

    : 9 :


    complainant is not devoid of merit, because he has been consistent, in his stand, that his fridge stopped functioning, after two months of its purchase and he had been regularly making complaints, on phone, to both the opposite parties and service station of manufacturing company, since then. In order to prove his plea, he has filed his own affidavit and copies of Public Call Office Ext. C-5 to C-9. The OP No. 2 has also admitted, that on the basis of the complaint made, by the complainant, on 2.6.2009, Sh. Neeraj Dhadwal, Territory Service Executive, employed in his service station, has set right the fridge, by replacing its 'compressor', OLP and gas charger on payment. It is also his case, that the complainant, made payment, for replacement of other parts, except compressor, which was within, the warranty period by then, but there is no proof of making payment, by the complainant. The job card Ext. C-3 also does not bear his signatures. The opposite party No. 2, has also taken, the plea, that on the basis of the complaint made, by the complainant on 16.6.2009, he has replaced several items of fridge, purchased by the complainant against payment of Rs. 850/-. This document has not been tendered, in evidence, by the opposite party No. 2, although in written version, it has been mentioned, that Annexure RW-2/A, is the proof of replacement of articles, on the said date, by the authorized service station. Since this document, has come on record, from the possession of the opponent, therefore, the complainant made reliance upon, the same, although anything contained therein, to his adverse interest, cannot be taken into consideration. In our considered opinion, cause of action is bundle of circumstances, which leads the person aggrieved, to avail remedy before judicial authority. In the instant case, recurring cause, has accrued, in favour of the complainant,

    Contd....10....

    : 10 :


    to approach the court, for removal of latent defects, in the fridge purchased by him, as such the case is not attracted, by the bar of limitation and the delay in filing of the complaint, has taken place, is of no consequence.

    15. Learned counsel for the OP No. 2, has further argued, that complainant, has not made any written complaint, to the manufacturer and receipts, tendered in evidence by him, regarding making contact with the opposite parties, on phone, are not collusive proof of evidence of lodging of complaints. Learned counsel has argued, that deficiency in service, cannot be assumed, on the basis of report of mechanic tendered, by the complainant and his complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed, with compensatory costs.

    16. The argument advanced, by the learned counsel for the OP No. 2, failed to sound well with us, because he himself, replaced compressor and certain items of the fridge purchased, by the complainant, twice after receiving complaints, from him, as submitted in the written version. As per report of mechanic, tendered in evidence, by the complainant, the fridge is still not functioning and needs replacement of compressor, which is sensitive part and OLP relay etc.. The said mechanic, has also submitted, that the freezer of the fridge, purchased by the complainant, is also leaking, as found by him, in his inspection done on 25.9.2009. The OP No. 2 neither availed opportunity, to cross examine the said mechanic, nor examined any expert, to falsify his report. Therefore, no ground, is made out, to reject the stand of the complainant, that fridge purchased, by him suffers, from manufacturing defect, from which manufacturing company, cannot be absolved. Since the complainant, has been subjected to, mental and physical harassment, due to defect, in the fridge purchased,

    Contd....11....

    : 11 :


    by the him, therefore, he needs to be adequately compensated, for physical and mental harassment and for incurring avoidable expenses, for filing of the instant complaint.

    17. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint against the Opposite Party No.1 and accept the same against the Opposite Party No.2 and direct him, to replace the refrigerator, purchased by the complainant, with a new refrigerator of the same description, with further direction, to pay him a sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation for mental and physical harassment and a sum of Rs.1000/-, as costs of filing of the instant complaint. The compliance of this order, be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

    18. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record.

  5. #5
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Complaint No. 198/21.11.2008

    Decided on : 17.11.2009

    Sh. Dharam Chand Jain S/o Sh. Shivji Ram, resident of Jain School Wali Gali, Mansa.

    ..... Complainant.

    VERSUS


    1. Ganesh Electronics, Gaushala Road, Mansa, through Sh. Parveen Kumar.

    2. Whirlpool of India Limited, B-1/A-12, First Floor, Mohan Co- operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.


    ..... Opposite Parties..


    Complaint under Section 12 of the

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    .....


    Present: Sh. S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

    Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

    Sh.Vishavpreet Garg, Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2.

    Before: Sh. P.S. Dhanoa, President.

    Sh. Sarat Chander, Member.

    Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member.


    ORDER:-


    Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President.

    This complaint, has been filed, by Sh. Dharam Chand Jain son of Sh. Shivji Ram, resident of Mansa, under Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against M/s Ganesh Electronics, Mansa, through its proprietor Sh. Parveen Kumar and

    Contd........2

    : 2 :


    Whirlpool of India Limited, New Delhi, for replacement of fridge purchased by him, with new fridge of same description and for payment of compensation, in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of filing of the complaint, in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, is as under:-

    2. That he purchased Elite fridge, bearing Serial No.WM34AYB 723472, Model Whirlpool FF-350, manufactured by OP No. 2, from OP No. 1, who is its dealer, on 15.2.2006. The fridge purchased, by the complainant, had not functioning, to his satisfaction and it does not freeze the ice. The defect in the fridge of the complainant, has not been removed, despite removal of module thereof, because there is a manufacturing defect. On 12.1.2007, the complainant lodged complaint, in terms of which the motor of the fridge, purchased by him, was replaced on 19.1.2007. At the time of change of module, the OP No.1, secured original bill, from the complainant, on the pretext, that the same is needed, for removal of the defect or replacement thereof, by manufacturing company, if defect is not rectified. The opposite parties have, neither removed the defect, in the fridge, purchased by the complainant nor they have replaced the same, despite several requests, because of which the complainant has been subjected to, mental and physical harassment and has incurred, avoidable expenditure, on filing of the complaint. Hence the complaint.

    3. On being put to notice, the opposite party No. 1, filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has not reported any defect, in the fridge, during the warranty period of one year, as such he is only entitled to, seek rectification, in the motor of the fridge, for which guarantee was given, for a period of 6 years; that the complainant has no locus standi, to file the complaint, against the

    Contd........3

    : 3 :


    answering opposite party, because the warranty, if any is given, by the manufacturing company and not by the dealer; that the complainant has filed 4/5 applications, against the answering opposite party, including the instant complaint, about 8 months ago, but has not led any evidence; that as the decision of the complaint, has been delayed, for long, as such this Forum, has no jurisdiction, to adjudicate the matter. On merits, it is denied, that any fridge was sold, by the answering opposite party, on 15.2.2006, but it is asserted, that the fridge was sold to him, in the year 2005. It is denied, that complainant lodged any complaint, with the answering opposite party, reporting defect of any part thereof. At the same time, it is asserted, that the motor of the fridge of the complainant was replaced, by the manufacturing company. It is denied, that there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the answering opposite party, because of which the complainant has been subjected to, mental and physical harassment and has incurred expenditure, for filing of the instant complaint. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, were denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint, was made with costs.

    3. The OP No. 2 filed, separate written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the answering opposite party, has obligation to set right the refrigerator, by effecting repairs or replacing the parts, within a period of comprehensive guarantee given, for a period of one year; that the repair and replacement of module is not covered, under the warranty, as such its repairs and replacement can be done on payment basis; that the complaint is abuse of process of law and is vague, because complainant has not, disclosed the dates and numbers of complaints, filed by him, to the answering opposite party or its authorized service station; that the complainant has, suppressed the terms and

    Contd........4

    : 4 :


    conditions of the warranty and has misrepresented, that any assurance was given, by the answering opposite party; that refrigerator cannot be ordered, to be replaced, if the defective parts can be set right, by affecting repairs; that the complaint is not maintainable, because the complainant has not supported the allegations, made therein, by any report of expert or laboratory about defect, which cannot be rectified, as such, the fact cannot be assumed, on the basis of his affidavit alone. On merits, it is submitted, that the complainant be put to strict proof, regarding purchase of refrigerator manufactured, by the answering opposite party, from its dealer. It is also contended, that the complainant has failed to, mention the particulars of the fridge purchased, by him from OP No. 1, including number of compressor, chassis and module number. He has also not mentioned, the bill number and has withheld warranty card, delivered to him. It is denied, that there is any manufacturing defect, in the fridge purchased, by the complainant. It is submitted, that the complainant has not impleaded, authorized service station of answering opposite party, for dealing with the complaints of the consumers. However, it is admitted, that the refrigerator purchased, by the complainant was set right, by replacement of module, but the complainant has not filed, the receipt, showing the payment made by him. He has also not produced "Goods Receipt Note" issued at the time of delivery of the refrigerator, for repairs and "Goods Despatch Note" intentionally, to suppress the cause appearance of defect, in the module, which is a sensitive part of the fridge and may occur due to fluctuation, in the electric power. It is submitted, that no amount has been charged, by OP No. 2 or service station, against the terms and conditions of the company, for replacement of the module. It is denied, that purchase and invoice bill secured, from the complainant, at

    Contd........5

    : 5 :


    the time of replacement of the module of his fridge or for any other purpose, by service station of the answering opposite party or that any assurance was given, for replacement of the fridge. It is denied, that there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the answering opposite party or that complainant has suffered, mental and physical harassment, due to the said reason. Rest of the averments made in the complaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint, was made with costs.

    4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant, furnished his affidavit, Ext. C-1 and report of expert Ext. C-2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh. Neeraj Singh Dhadwal, Ext. OP-1 and photo copy of job card, Ext. OP-2 and closed their evidence.

    5. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance.

    6. At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant Sh. S.P.Gupta, Advocate, has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and has drawn our attention, to report of mechanic, tendered in evidence by the complainant and admissions made by the opposite parties, in the written version, about the repair of parts of the refrigerator, purchased by him. Learned counsel has argued, that since the defects, in the refrigerator, have not been rectified, despite repair, as such, it needs to be replaced and opposite parties, cannot escape liability, by invoking the terms and conditions of warranty and complainant, is also entitled, to payment of compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of filing of the complaint.

    Contd........6

    : 6 :


    7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party

    No.1, Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate has submitted that as per the allegations made by the complainant, the manufacturing company, has admitted the reporting of defects, by him and their removal and OP No.2 has also expressed willingness, to effect the repair or replace the defective parts, as such, no liability can be fastened upon his client, who has merely acted, as an agent, of the manufacturing company, for payment of commission in sale of refrigerator to the complainant in the capacity of dealer.

    8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1, because he has sold the refrigerator, to the complainant, as an agent of the manufacturing company, in the capacity of a 'dealer'. The complainant has not attributed, any deficiency in service, on the part of OP No.1, because of which condition of the refrigerator, purchased by him, might have deteriorated. Even the OP No.2 i.e. the manufacturing company of the refrigerator, has not made any such allegation, against the OP No.1, in the written version filed by him.

    9. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.2, have also gracefully conceded, that there is no negligence, on the part of the OP No.1, in removal of defects, in the refrigerator. It has also come on record, that OP No.1, on receipt of complaints, from the complainant, forwarded the same, to the manufacturing company. Since no deficiency in service, is alleged or proved, on the part of the OP No.1, as such, he cannot be burdened with any liability, for any defect, in the refrigerator, purchased by the complainant, merely because it has been sold by him, as dealer of the manufacturing company. Resultantly, in our opinion, complaint against him deserves to be dismissed.

    Contd........7

    : 7 :


    10. At this stage, learned counsel for the OP No.2, Sh. Vishvpreet Garg, Advocate, has argued that complainant, has failed, to prove any manufacturing defect, in his refrigerator, by producing any cogent evidence and report of the mechanic, tendered in evidence, by him, has been procurred, during the pendency of the complaint, as such, manipulation thereof, cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel, has further submitted, that after receiving the complaint, from the complainant, manufacturer has replaced the 'module' of the refrigerator and the said part is frequently damaged, due to fluctuation of electric energy. Learned counsel has argued, that complainant, is required to use stabilizer, for proper functioning of his refrigerator, as such, he cannot take advantage of his own lapse and shift the liability upon the manufacturer. Learned counsel has further argued, that as per his own version, the complainant, had purchased the refrigerator, on 15.2.2006 and reported the defect therein, on 19.1.2007, and instant complaint, has been filed, on 21.11.2008. Learned counsel, has argued full vehemence, that had there been any defect, in the refrigerator, then it was expected, to work to the satisfaction of the complainant, as such, delay in filing of the complaint, cannot be lightly brushed aside, by this Forum, as it leads to inference that there is no manufacturing defect therein Learned counsel has urged, that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint, is nothing, but abuse of process of law, as such, it is liable to be dismissed, with special costs.

    11. The factum of purchase of the refrigerator, by the complainant, has been specifically admitted, by the OP No.1, who is dealer of the manufacturing company. The OP No.2 has also admitted, that after receipt of the complaint, from the complainant, through the dealer, the module of

    Contd........8

    : 8 :


    the refrigerator, was replaced, by his mechanic. The manufacturing company, has also made an offer, that in case any part of the refrigerator, needs repair or replacement of defective part, then he is willing to do so, subject to terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant, has pleaded and proved, to our satisfaction, that refrigerator, purchased by him, never functioned, to his satisfaction, since the date of purchase thereof. These allegations, have also been reiterated, by him, in his duly sworn affidavit Ext.C-1, tendered in evidence. He has also tendered in evidence, report of the mechanic Ext.C-2, given after checking of the refrigerator, to the effect, that its 'module', 'compressor' and other parts, are defective, as such, the same cannot be set in order, with repair. These are the sensitive parts of the refrigerator and in case they do not function properly, then refrigerator purchased by the consumer is of no use for him and members of this family. There is no evidence showing that mechanic deputed by the manufacturer has noticed defect in the 'module' due to fluctuation of electric energy at the time of its replacement. As such, there is no option for us, but to hold that these defects in the refrigerator, purchased by the complainant, are due to any latent manufacturing defect. Therefore, we express our inability, to accede to the submissions, made by the counsel for the OP No.2, that complainant, has not proved any manufacturing defect, in the refrigerator, which may need its replacement. The report of the mechanic tendered by the complainant cannot be excluded, from evidence, by us because no evidence, to the contrary, has been adduced on record, by the opposite parties, who have not even availed opportunity, to cross examine the said expert witness, of the complainant. As the complainant, is not satisfied, with the working of the refrigerator, purchased by him, since the date of purchase and the same could not be put

    Contd........9

    : 9 :

    in order despite repair and replacement of module, therefore, manufacturer, cannot deny him the adequate relief, either by invoking the provisions of warranty, or by taking advantage of delay, which has occurred, on the part of the complainant, to knock the door of this Forum, for grant of the reliefs, to which he is entitled. In the given circumstances, we are of the view, that mere delay in filing of the complaint, by the complainant, neither demolish his case, nor debar him, from claiming reliefs, from the opposite parties, as prayed for in the complaint.

    12. In the light of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion, that complainant remained successful, in proving deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP No.2, who cannot escape liability, for replacement of the refrigerator, bearing manufacturing defect, and to pay adequate amount on account of compensation and costs, to the complainant.

    13. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint against the Opposite Party No.1 and accept the same against the Opposite Party No.2 and direct him, to replace the refrigerator, purchased by the complainant, with a new refrigerator of the same description, with further direction, to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation for mental and physical harassment and a sum of Rs.1000/-, as costs of filing of the instant complaint. The compliance of this order, be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

    14. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record.

  6. #6
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Complaint Case No : 1502 of 2009

    Date of Institution : 18.11.2009

    Date of Decision : 14.12.2009



    B.B.Puri son of Late Sh.Om Parkash Puri, House No.391, Labour Bureau Society, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

    ….…Complainant

    V E R S U S

    M/s Paradise Refrigeration & Electrical, Booth No.16, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.

    ..…Opposite Party



    CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

    SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

    DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



    Argued by: Complainant in person.



    PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

    The Whirlpool Refrigerator of complainant on having some problem in giving proper cooling was got checked from OP, who changed its Compressor and charged Rs.3000/- vide Ann.I and gave one year warranty on compressor. However, the said refrigerator again gave same problem in the month of Sept., 2009 and as such, it was again checked by OPs, who again changed its compressor and charged Rs.1000/- vide Ann.II inspite of the fact that the earlier compressor fitted by them was having one year warranty. The complainant visited the OP personally and requested for refund of Rs.1000/- charged by them being illegal & arbitrary, but to no avail. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant had to suffer a lot.

    2] OP was served for 02.12.09 but he did not turn up despite having been duly served. Therefore, the OP was proceeded against exparte.

    3] Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

    4] We have heard the complainant in person and has also perused the record.

    5] According to the complainant the refrigerator was repaired and a new compressor was provided on 15.06.09 vide annexure-1. It carried a warranty of one year as mentioned in annexure-1 itself. In case of defect it was therefore required to be repaired or the compressor was to be replaced free-of-cost. However, the OP charged Rs.800+Rs200=Rs.1,000/- vide annexure 2, dated 16.09.09 for replacing the compressor. The OP was not entitled to this amount and charging of Rs.1,000/- contrary to the undertaking given by him is an unfair trade practice. It appears that is why the OP has not come forward to contest this complaint even inspite of service because it appears the OP feels that it has no defense to make against the request made by the complainant.

    6] We are therefore of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.1,000/-. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.5,00/- with in 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a., since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 18.11.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

  7. #7
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    [ Complaint No.248/8.9.2009.

    Decided on : 31.12.2009

    Sh.Narinder Singh son of Sh. Parkash Singh, a resident of village Sangha, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District, Mansa.

    .... Complainant.

    VERSUS
    Ganesh Electronics, Gaushala Road, Mansa through its Proprietor/ Partner/Manager.

    .... Opposite Party.

    Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
    Present: Sh. S.S.Joga, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

    Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party.

    Before: Sh.George, President.

    Sh.Sarat Chander, Member.

    ORDER:-
    Sh.George, President:

    The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the opposite party with the allegations, that he purchased a refrigerator of 'Whirlpool' make model 10846 for a consideration of Rs.16,000/- vide bill No.3642 dated 14.5.2009 from the OP. Since the refrigerator of the complainant did not function in accordance to its specifications, the complainant lodged a complaint with the OP on 12.8.2009. On the assurance of the OP that he would send a qualified person having knowledge of air conditioner of International standards, he deposited a sum of Rs.500/- with the OP as advance fee for the visit of the said qualified person. Thereafter, a person, namely, Sh. Balkaran Singh S/o Sh.Jangir Singh, approached the complainant and after confirming his identity from the OP, he allowed the said person to check the air conditioner, who after 15-20 minutes of checking, without giving any solid reason, stated that the air conditioner has burnt. Feeling dissatisfied, the complainant approached Sh.Manmohan Singh Khippal, Government Electrical Contractor, who after thorough examination, reported that the air conditioner has been burnt due to the negligence on the part of Sh.Balkaran Singh. As such, the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice intentionally and wilfully by sending an unqualified person to check his air conditioner. Thereafter the complainant in the presence of 3-4 respectable persons, approached the OP, who admitted his negligence and assured that he would replace the burnt 2 ton air conditioner with a new one of reputed company, but till date nothing has been done by him in this regard. Due to the above act of the OP the complainant and his old age parents have been subjected to mental and physical harassment and has thus filed the present complaint for replacement of the burnt air conditioner with a new one and has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

    2, The opposite party contested the allegations of the complaint and filed written reply wherein it has been alleged that he has neither sent any mechanic, expert in air conditioner, to the house of the complainant for rectification of his air conditioner, nor he received any amount for repairs of the air conditioner from the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator from his shop, but he has never lodged any complaint about its working, as such, no question arises for sending of any mechanic to the premises of the complainant. The complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint just to escape the payment of the cost of the refrigerator, which he has yet to pay to the OP. All other facts narrated by the complainant not admitted as correct.

    3. In order to prove the allegations, the complainant brought on record his own affidavit Ext.C-1, copy of bill Ext.C-2, copy of inspection report Ext.C-3, copy of expert report Ext.C-4, affidavit of Sh.Manmohan Singh Ext.C-5 and closed the evidence, whereas the OP in order to controvert the evidence of the complainant, has brought on the record, his own affidavit Ext.OP-1.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.

    5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently contended that the OP, on the request of the complainant, deputed one person on 17.8.2009, namely, Sh.Balkaran Singh S/o Sh. Jangir Singh, to visit the premises of the complainant, who claimed himself to be an Air Conditioner mechanic, for rectification of 2 ton air conditioner of the complainant. He further urged that in fact Sh.Balkaran Singh was not a qualified mechanic of the air conditioner. Due to his mis handling of the air conditioner, it went totally unworkable. When he came to know that the OP has sent a incompetent and unqualified person and due to his negligence, the air conditioner of the complainant, which was of international standard, has been burnt and rendered without any utility, he approached the OP in the presence of 3-4 respectable persons. The OP accepted his negligence and assured the complainant that he would replace the burnt air conditioner with 2 ton air conditioner of a reputed company, but he did not kept his promise and, therefore, the complainant had to file the present complaint. Learned counsel urged that since the complainant has availed the services for consideration of the OP, who is responsible for deputing an incompetent and unqualified mechanic, resultantly, the complainant has suffered huge loss as his working air conditioner went off the service.

    6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP vehemently controverted the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the complainant and he strongly urged that the OP is not rendering any service for rectification of the air conditioners. He is having only retail services as a dealer of Onida, Sony, Crown, Whirlpool, Godrej etc and he is not having any service centre, therefore, there is no reason for him to depute any mechanic for the repair of the air conditioner. The complainant purchased the refrigerator vide invoice Ext.C-2 on 14.5.2009 and the OP had neither entered into any type of transaction for repair of the refrigerator of the complainant, nor he received any amount for repairs of the air conditioner of the complainant. Learned counsel also urged that except the affidavit of the complainant Ext.C-1, he has not brought on record any such evidence that on 17.8.2009 a person namely Sh.Balkaran Singh was deputed by the OP for the repairs of the air conditioner of the complainant.

    7. We have taken into consideration the rival contentions of both the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the air conditioner was not purchased by the complainant from the OP. He purchased only one refrigerator. The claim of the complainant, that on his request, the OP sent a person namely Sh.Balkaran Singh to his premises, who handled his Swiss made international standard 2 ton air conditioner and due to his incompetence, the air conditioner got burnt and it became totally unserviceable. The complainant has stated in Para No.7 of his affidavit Ext.C-1 that the matter was discussed with the OP in the presence of 3/4 respectable persons and the OP, after accepting his negligence, assured that he would replace the burnt air conditioner with 2 ton air conditioner of reputed company, but till date, even after various reminders and personal visits, the OP did not consider his humble request. It remained unexplained, as to why any of the 3/4 respectable persons, who were stated to be present at the time the OP accepted his negligence in deputing the mechanic namely Sh.Balkaran Singh for repairs of the air conditioner of the complainant, are not examined. If there would would have been any such circumstance i.e. acceptance on the part of the OP with regard to deputing of an incompetent mechanic to do the job i.e. repair of the air conditioner, the complainant would have definitely examined atleast one of such respectable person. The complainant has also not put any receipt or acknowledgment of making payment of Rs.500/- to the OP's mechanic Sh.Balkaran Singh and under the circumstances, on the basis of bald statement of the complainant in his affidavit Ext.C-1, the OP cannot be made liable for any negligence or deficiency in providing service to the complainant.

    8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there remains to be no merit in the complaint of the complainant and, therefore, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

    9. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record.

  8. #8
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Case No.923/09

    Gulshan Lal Khurana, DDA flat No.9-B, Block-BG-5A, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi – 63.

    …..Complainant

    Versus

    Sh.Sumit, owner, M/s.Smooth Waves, BG-6/27A, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi – 110063.

    ……..Opposite Parties

    CORAM : J.P. SHARMA : PRESIDENT

    : S.M. MAZUMDAR : MEMBER

    : DR. PREMLATA : MEMBER

    O R D E R

    J.P. SHARMA (PRESIDENT) :

    In brief, complainant’s case is that he got gas filled in his Whirlpool Refrigerator from Sh.Sumit, owner of M/s.Smooth Waves (OP) on 16.09.09 on payment of Rs.1,200/-. OP gave written guarantee for six months about filling of the gas. A copy of the bill and warranty have been enclosed with the complaint. Just after two days, complainant observed that water was dropping through the freezer, spreading to lower shelves and floor and that cooling had also not improved. Thereafter, complainant made several telephone calls and visited OP personally with the request to remove the complaint but instead of rectifying the defect, OP misbehaved with the complainant and therefore, this complaint has been filed before this Forum by complainant Sh.Gulshal Lal Khurana against Sh.Sumit, owner of M/s.Smooth Waves (OP).

    Despite notice none for OP turned up and therefore, OP had to be proceeded exparte.

    During exparte evidence, complainant filed his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint. In the absence of any averment to the contrary or any evidence having been adduced in rebuttal by OP, we see no reason to disbelieve complainant’s version which clearly makes out a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

    As a result of what has been discussed above, we direct OP to reimburse the amount of Rs.650/- to the complainant and also to pay him a sum of Rs.700/- towards compensation and cost for the harassment caused to him.

    OP shall comply with the above mentioned order within 30 days of its receipt failing which proceedings u/s 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act may be initiated against them.

    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge. Thereafter, the file be consigned to the Record Room.

  9. #9
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Complaint No.67/21.4.2009.

    Decided on : 12.01.2010


    Sh.Bhushan Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai, Cycle Repair Works, Near Old Court Road, Mansa.
    .... Complainant.
    VERSUS
    1. Ganesh Electronics, Gaushala Road, Mansa through its Proprietor

    Sh.Gopal Chand.


    2. M/s Whirlpool India Limited, Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44,

    Gurgaon, Haryana. 122 002

    .... Opposite Parties.

    Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    Present: Sh. B.D.Jindal, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

    Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the OP No.1.

    Sh.Vishvpreet Garg, Advocate counsel for the OP No.2.

    Before: Sh.George, President.

    Sh.Sarat Chander, Member.

    Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.

    ORDER:-


    Sh.George, President:

    The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the opposite parties with the allegations, that he purchased a 260 capacity refrigerator of 'Whirlpool' make for a consideration of Rs.14,900/- vide bill No.1687 dated 18.5.2008 from the OP No.1 bearing Model No.10812. The said refrigerator alongwith all its parts carried a guarantee of one year and its motor carried five years warranty. It was assured by the OP No.1 to the complainant, while selling the refrigerator, that in the event of any minor defect, the OP No.1 would repair the same and if any manufacturing or major defect occurs in the refrigerator, the same shall be looked after by him in accordance with the terms and conditions of the manufacturing company i.e. OP No.2. After 4-5 months of its purchase, the cooling capacity of the refrigerator decreased and it started giving problems, as such, the complainant approached the OP No.1 for the replacement/repair of minor defects in the refrigerator, but the OP No.1 could not take effective steps. Even the mechanic deputed by the OP No.1 could not restore the cooling capacity of the refrigerator. Due to the supply of defective refrigerator by the OP No.1, the complainant has been deprived of its use. Despite several requests made to the OPs, they have failed to replace/repair the defective refrigerator. Otherwise also the OP No.1 has assured the complainant to supply him refrigerator of model 10812 at the time of its sale, but has sold him the refrigerator bearing model No.10842, as such, he has committed fraud and has thus indulged in unfair trade practice, in violation of the terms and conditions of the warranty card and bill. The OPs did not even respond to the legal notice served upon them by the complainant. The complainant and his family members have been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to the supply of defective refrigerator to them. The complainant is thus entitled for the replacement of the refrigerator with a new one in the accordance with the bill and has claimed compensation and costs to the tune of Rs.15,000/- from the OPs.

    2. The opposite party No.1 contested the allegations of the complaint and filed written reply wherein it has been alleged that the complainant has approached him only once and he himself agreed before the replying OP that, a sharp edged object got struck in the freezer while he was taking out ice from it. The replying OP immediately deputed a mechanic for inspection of the refrigerator, who also reported the same fact. The refrigerator got damaged only due to the fault of the complainant himself, and no other defect persists in it, as such he is not entitled for any relief. No warranty or guarantee has been given by the replying OP to the complainant, as it is given by the manufacturing company only. The plea of fraud has been taken by the complainant, as such it cannot be decided by this Forum in summary manner. Due to clerical mistake the figure 1 has been written instead of 4 in model of the refrigerator to read figure 10842 as 10812. All other facts narrated by the complainant not admitted as correct.

    3. The Opposite Party No.2 filed separate written version wherein, it has been alleged, that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and he may be directed to refer the cause of defect to the Central Approved Laboratory for its authenticity. No expert report has been filed by the complainant to prove his allegation and his own affidavit is not sufficient to prove that the refrigerator has some manufacturing defect. The defect in the refrigerator is not covered under the terms of warranty since the defect has developed due to mishandling of the refrigerator by the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the refrigerator in dispute suffers from any particular manufacturing defect. The replying OP received a complaint on 21.3.2009 through the OP No.1 which was attended by their Service Executive Mr.Harwinder Singh on the same day. He has reported that the freezer box is punctured by using sharp edged object and requires replacement on chargeable basis, as such type of damage caused by mishandling is not covered under the terms of warranty. The complainant refused to pay the charges and also to show the bill. The refrigerator is not having any other defect which is required to be attended by the OP No.2. All other facts narrated by the complainant not admitted as correct.

    4. In order to prove the allegations, the complainant brought on record his own affidavit Ext.C-1, affidavit of Sh.Kamaljeet Singh Ext.C-2, copy of OPD slips Ext.C-3 & C-4, copy of lab reports Ext.C-5 to C-9, copy of prescription slip Ext.C-10, copy of bill Ext.C-11, copy of warranty card Ext.C-12 and closed the evidence, whereas the OPs in order to controvert the evidence of the complainant, has brought on the record, affidavit of Sh.Praveen Kumar Ext.OP-1, Affidavit of Sh.Harwinder Singh Ext.OP-2, Report of mechanic Ext.OP-3, affidavit of Sh.Satnam Singh Ext.OP-4, copy of literature Ext.OP-5 and copy of terms and conditions of warranty Ext.OP-6.

    5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.

    6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently urged, that the OPs have sold a refrigerator to the complainant on 18.5.2008 against bill Ext.C-11 with a warranty Ext.C-12. The learned counsel urged that the refrigerator started troubling the complainant, as its cooling remained effective only for 4-5 months of its purchase and gradually it continued to decrease. Learned counsel urged that matter was reported to OP No.1, who sent one mechanic to the complainant but he neither prepared the job card, nor informed the complainant about the defect. The complainant also came to know, that infact, he purchased the refrigerator of Model 10812, whereas, he noticed that OP No.1 sold him the refrigerator of model No.10842. The OP No.1 suppressed the fact that he is infact handing over to the complainant a refrigerator of model 10842 instead of model 10812, despite the fact that OP No.1 mentioned on the retail invoice Ext.C-11 model of refrigerator as '10812'. Learned counsel has further urged that neither OP No.1, nor OP No.2 has rectified the defect, which developed in the refrigerator, within the warranty period of one year, and the refrigerator has been sold with a different model, by adopting "unfair trade practice". The Learned counsel thus urged that the complainant is entitled for a new refrigerator of model 10812 with full warranty as he has paid an amount of Rs.14,900/- for purchase of a refrigerator of model `10812 and not for refrigerator of model 10842.

    7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OPs vehemently controverted the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the complainant and he strongly urged that the refrigerator of model 10842 was sold to the complainant and by clerical mistake figure 10812 was written in the retail invoice and guarantee card instead of model 10842. Learned counsel also urged that if the OPs had any malafide intention, in that case the serial number would have been definitely different in the two models i.e. Model No.10812 and 10842. Learned counsel has referred to the Sale Invoice, as well as a photocopy of engraved model number etc. of the refrigerator and urged that the model number written in the retail invoice is due to clerical mistake. Learned counsel also urged that cooling effect in the refrigerator resulted due to misuse of the refrigerator by the complainant, as the mechanic, who attended to the complaint of the complainant, has reported, as per his report Ext.OP-3 and also affidavit Ext.OP-4, that there is one hole in the cooling portion of the refrigerator, which is the result of using some sharp edged object and resultantly the refrigerator was not giving its full cooling effect. Learned counsel urged that the refrigerator was misused by the complainant and, therefore, the OPs No.1 and 2 are not liable to replace the refrigerator, as non cooling effect of the refrigerator was not due to any manufacturing defect.

    8. We have considered the arguments put forward by both the learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the record, it appears that serial number of the refrigerator given in the retail invoice Ext.C-11 tallies with the serial number engraved on the refrigerator. The model number written in the retail invoice and warranty Ext.C-12 as '10812' may be due to clerical mistake because if there would have been any such malafide intention on the part of the OP No.1, he would have not mentioned the model 10812 in the retail invoice while infact handing over the refrigerator of model 10842 to the complainant. The complainant has not brought on record any evidence to show that model 10812 is of superior quality as compared to the refrigerator of model 10842 or that the complainant has suffered any monetary loss due to wrong mention of model number in the retail invoice by the OP No.1 The complainant during the course of arguments, was introduced by his counsel to be a qualified mechanic who has knowledge about refrigeration works. If this is the position, it would have been very easy for the complainant to know the actual defect for non cooling of the freezer of the refrigerator. The OP No.1, by his own affidavit Ext.OP-1 and the affidavit of Sh.Harwinder Singh Ext.OP-2 alongwith report of Sh.Harwinder Singh Ext.OP-3, has proved that non cooling effect occurred in the refrigerator as the freezer was pierced with some sharp edged object and according to the report of Sh.Harwinder Singh EXt.OP-3, which remained uncontroverted, the cause of the non colling of the freezer of the refrigerator was in the knowledge of

    the complainant, but the complaint in his complaint, as well as in his affidavit suppressed this material fact. As to why the complainant suppressed the material fact, which was in his knowledge, makes the complainant's claim highly unsustainable, that the non cooling effect occurred in the refrigerator due to some manufacturing defect.

    9. The complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The relief sought by the complainant in the complaint has been filed by suppressing the material facts, therefore, he has made himself dis-entitled for discretionary and equatable relief, under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It is well settled that a person approaching the Consumer Fora for relief, is under an obligation, to disclose each and every fact touching the merit of the case, failing which defaulting consumer, is not entitled to reliefs prayed for.

    10. A Similar view has been taken again by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled V.P.Kapoor and others versus Raj Chopra and others 1999(I) CPR (NC) 33, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that:

    " a party which suppress facts from the Fora does not deserve to get relief."


    11. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, as referred to herein above, the complainant has suppressed the material facts and has not come before the Forum with clean hands and, therefore, he has made himself dis-entitled for the relief sought and resultantly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.


    12. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record.

  10. #10
    Jeetendra Patil Guest

    Angry Max Newyork Life Insurance

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    My name is Jeetendra Patil. My Max NewYorl policy number is 226810729.

    Last year, in Dec 2009, I received email / letter from Max NewYorl to pay Rs.500 towards premium. I paid same, but after 2 months I was told that due to non-payment of premium, policy was in lapse state. Then, I went to Max NewYork branch in Kukatpally in Hyderabad in mid of 2009. I asked them what amount needs to be paid to activate policy. They did all calculation, considering bonus, and then asked me to pay appx. Rs.1990, and also asked me to give health declaration form, which I gave. They told me that after that policy will be activated within two weeks. I trusted them. However to my surprise, when I called to customer care in 2010 to pay premium for 2010. I was told that policy was I lapse state for last one year, and was surrendered. They also said that they didn’t received health declaration form, which was submitted to Kukatpally branch in Hyderabad. I did, what I was told to do by Hyderabad branch office, after that policy should have been activated, if it has not been activated and gone into lapse mode and then surrendered than its not my fault. Now they say that policy have been surrendered, and this is not my fault at all.

    I have now no option but to go to Consumer Court.

    I have talking to customer care people for last 4 weeks, and none of them is able to resolve this. Its really painful and feels like I am penalized for buying policy from Max NewYork Life Insurance.

    I hope you will look into this and address the issues at the earliest.

    Best regards,

    Jeetendra Patil (patiljeetendra@yahoo.com; 9985966606)

  11. #11
    harbans singh Guest

    Default unstiasfactory service of washing machine under AMC

    i have fully automatic washing machine i am highly unsatisfied with service center and your engineer.my washing machine needed repair several times in last 1 year and in last 15 days it has been seen 4 times by your engineer and went to your service center but still not functioning. every time your service center ask for the thing which is not covered under AMC like softener , scale remove, chemical wash and charges for the same but machine does not work properly. this does not go with reputation of whirlpool.kindly look in to the mater and try to keep a customer with yourself who believe in whirlpool and has many of your products.

    harbans singh

  12. #12
    dhanrajprajapat is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3

    Unhappy No Solution for my whilpool refrigrator[Cooling issue and Ice issue]

    Hello Sir,

    i purcahsed my whirlpool 250 Ltrs in 14200 rs, refrigrator on 8th May 2010 from Bagga Electrnoics. NIT-5 Faridabad. But from day one, this refrigrator is not performing the cooling.[Make ice only once in 24 hours]

    We Launch the first complaint against it on 18th May 2010, complaint no: hr0510007369, and the engineer from
    service center visited our home but said that Gas has been leaked, he said another person will be there to fill the gas
    then another engineer came and fill the gas. After fealing the gas we faced the same issue.

    We launched another complaint on 25 may 2010, complaint no: hr0510010762, Engineer visited my home and said that you have extra gas in the fridge. He made some gas less in the fridge and said it will work fine. But again we find the same issue

    We launched another complaint on 3rd June 2010, complaint no: hr0610001188, Engineer visited my home and said that some part is not working and he replaced that. After that also its not working.

    Note: for all complaints i followed up with customer care 5 times in a day on phone so that they send the Engineer at home asap but that response time from thier side was very poor.

    This time i am completly helpless, We are only following with the Agent also to solve our problem but still we do noy have any solution on that even if dealer already sent some engineer from thier side.

    I am writing this complaint first and last time, if my problem will not be resolved with in next 3 days(Replace complete fridge), i will take some legal and strict action as Just because of you guys my family members are helpless. As i paid the money to you why should i take the defective piece and if its given then its your fault, why should i suffer for that and when i said the same thing to my dealer then he shouted on me and said do whatever you can. When we call him again and again he put the phone on another side and it start returning the nusy tone.

    Contact Details of Bagga electronics: 2412005, 09810391600

    Helpless Customer:
    Dhanraj Prajapat
    Faridabad
    9910207382
    Last edited by dhanrajprajapat; 06-09-2010 at 11:11 PM.

  13. #13
    dhanrajprajapat is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hello Sir,

    i purcahsed my whirlpool 250 Ltrs in 14200 rs, refrigrator on 8th May 2010 from Bagga Electrnoics. NIT-5 Faridabad. But from day one, this refrigrator is not performing the cooling.[Make ice only once in 24 hours]

    We Launch the first complaint against it on 18th May 2010, complaint no: hr0510007369, and the engineer from
    service center visited our home but said that Gas has been leaked, he said another person will be there to fill the gas
    then another engineer came and fill the gas. After fealing the gas we faced the same issue.

    We launched another complaint on 25 may 2010, complaint no: hr0510010762, Engineer visited my home and said that you have extra gas in the fridge. He made some gas less in the fridge and said it will work fine. But again we find the same issue

    We launched another complaint on 3rd June 2010, complaint no: hr0610001188, Engineer visited my home and said that some part is not working and he replaced that. After that also its not working.

    Note: for all complaints i followed up with customer care 5 times in a day on phone so that they send the Engineer at home asap but that response time from thier side was very poor.

    This time i am completly helpless, We are only following with the Agent also to solve our problem but still we do noy have any solution on that even if dealer already sent some engineer from thier side.

    I am writing this complaint first and last time, if my problem will not be resolved with in next 3 days, i will take some legal and strict action as Just because of you guys my family members are helpless.[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    dhanrajprajapat is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hello Sir,

    i purcahsed my whirlpool 250 Ltrs in 14200 rs, refrigrator on 8th May 2010 from Bagga Electrnoics. NIT-5 Faridabad. But from day one, this refrigrator is not performing the cooling.[Make ice only once in 24 hours]

    We Launch the first complaint against it on 18th May 2010, complaint no: hr0510007369, and the engineer from
    service center visited our home but said that Gas has been leaked, he said another person will be there to fill the gas
    then another engineer came and fill the gas. After fealing the gas we faced the same issue.

    We launched another complaint on 25 may 2010, complaint no: hr0510010762, Engineer visited my home and said that you have extra gas in the fridge. He made some gas less in the fridge and said it will work fine. But again we find the same issue

    We launched another complaint on 3rd June 2010, complaint no: hr0610001188, Engineer visited my home and said that some part is not working and he replaced that. After that also its not working.

    Note: for all complaints i followed up with customer care 5 times in a day on phone so that they send the Engineer at home asap but that response time from thier side was very poor.

    This time i am completly helpless, We are only following with the Agent also to solve our problem but still we do noy have any solution on that even if dealer already sent some engineer from thier side.

    I am writing this complaint first and last time, if my problem will not be resolved with in next 3 days(Replace complete fridge), i will take some legal and strict action as Just because of you guys my family members are helpless. As i paid the money to you why should i take the defective piece and if its given then its your fault, why should i suffer for that and when i said the same thing to my dealer then he shouted on me and said do whatever you can. When we call him again and again he put the phone on another side and it start returning the nusy tone.

    Contact Details of Bagga electronics: 2412005, 09810391600

    Helpless Customer:
    Dhanraj Prajapat
    Faridabad
    9910207382

  15. #15
    Unregistered Guest

    Default whirlpool single door refrigerator

    defrost system faulty since purchase
    poor customer service

+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. whirlpool india
    By Rajni Kapoor in forum Washing Machine
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 07-14-2014, 04:10 PM
  2. Whirlpool AC.
    By Unregistered in forum Air Conditioner
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-11-2013, 04:08 PM
  3. whirlpool AC
    By SONAL MINGLANI in forum Air Conditioner
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-22-2012, 11:48 AM
  4. whirlpool india and SK electronics aligarh
    By vikas yadav in forum Electrical Appliances
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 06:43 PM
  5. Whirlpool
    By R.P.Dubey in forum Washing Machine
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-28-2009, 03:01 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •