In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.   206 / 2011

1)                   Sri Bhola Nath Das,

South City Residency, Tower-3, Flat No. 13G,

375, P.A.S. Road, Kolkata-700068.                                                         ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   M/s. Whirlpool (Home Care Centre),

8, Camac Street, Shanti Niketan Building, Kolkata-700017.                       ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.

                        Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member

Order No.    1 2   Dated  2 9 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 2 .

Complainant, Shri Bhola Nath Das, by filing a petition u/s 12 of he C.P. Act,1986 has prayed for a direction  to be given upon the o.p. to replace the washing machine in question  along with a prayer for compensation of Rs.2000/- and a new warranty for t machine with other prayers.

            Complainant purchased one washing machine for an amount of Rs.13,128/- plus vat @ 13.5%. But at the time of installation of the said machine on 24.12.10, on company’s installation report, complainant endorsed his remark as ‘Rear outside casing of the machine has spot marks and dents are there’. Thereafter on 26.3.11 complainant lodged complaint through the help line no. of o.p. in respect of some other defects of the machine. Although, o.p. sent its men to resolve the problem, on various dates such as 4.4.11, 13.4.11, 14.4.11, but the problems remained unresolved.

            Being frustrated complainant wrote a letter to G.M. of o.p. on 7.4.11. But still no fruitful result came out. And finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant case. Notice was served upon o.p. And o.p. appeared and filed w/v. Accordingly, the case was heard on merit on contest.

Decision with reasons:

            We have perused all documents on record filed by both parties including evidence, reply and BNA. O.p. in their w/v vide para no.10 has stated as the defects were found during warranty period, those defects were to be repaired and if those could not be repaired, defects parts of the machines are subject to replacement. But as the complainant has asked for the replacement of the entire machine, it is not tenable. Even o.p. alleged that complainant has failed to understand the accurate purpose of the term ‘warranty’.

            Here, we put one question to o.p. that if they have understood the real meaning of ‘warranty’, why whey did not replace the defective parts of machine in question when complainant repeatedly asked them to repair the defects. So, this plea of the o.p. is not at all tenable that in terms of warranty, the TV set in question cannot be replaced. Moreover, o.p. has challenged the level of knowledge of the complainant. Is it a fact that by paying such a big amount of Rs.13,128/- plus vat for a washing machine, complainant has committed a mistake? Accordingly, we hold o.p. to be deficient in providing service to the complainant. So, the case succeeds on merit with cost against o.p.

            Hence, ordered,

            That o.p. is directed to replace the washing machine with a same model, same features of same value with fresh warranty within 45 days from the date of communication of this order. O.p. is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication. If o.p. fails to comply with the above order, a penalty of Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty) only per day shall be charged upon o.p. till the actual compliance by o.p.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

   _____Sd-_______            _______Sd-_______             ______Sd-________

     MEMBER                            MEMBER                        PRESIDENT