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?
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,
Ms. Shika Sapra, Advocate
1. M/s Whirlpool India Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director/
B-227, Greater Kailash-I,
Second address :-
4-8, Vaipalik , USO Road,
Qutab Institutional Area,
2. M/s Jeevan Jee Refrigeration Engineers,
K-40, Lajpat Nagar-II,
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President.
M.L. Sahni, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the
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.