Vishakhapatnam District Commission Holds Whirlpool India And Reliance Retail Liable For Selling And Failing To Refund/Replace Defective Refrigerator

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Vishakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench comprising Smt. D. Gudla Tanuja (President), Sri Varri Krishna Murthy (Member) and Smt. Rahimunnisa Begum (Member) held Whirlpool India Limited and Reliance Retail Limited liable for the sale of a defective refrigerator and their subsequent failure to resolve the defects or replace it within the warranty period. Brief Facts: Soornapudi Sridevi (“Complainant”) purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator from a local Reliance Retail Limited Store (“Seller”), paying an amount of Rs. 28,079/-. From the date of installation, the Complainant started encountering issues with the refrigerator. As the product was covered by a 10-year warranty provided by Whirlpool, the Complainant complained to the Seller regarding defects in the product. Later, the Seller sent a technician to carry out repairs but the issue persisted. Subsequently, the Complainant contacted Whirlpool's Customer Care number, and a service engineer from R.R. Services (“Service Provider”) visited the residence but failed to rectify the defects. Later, the Service Provider sent a mail stating that the request made by the Complainant had been allocated to a branch and another message stated that the "request is pending - spare part awaited." Even after six months, the problem remained unresolved. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (“District Commission”). In response, the Seller denied the allegations and contended that it has no involvement in the warranty terms and conditions, as the warranty was a contract between the Complainant and the manufacturer, Whirlpool. It argued that there was no cause of action against them, and was not negligent. It argued that the store was merely a retailer and it was protected under Section 220 of the Indian Contract Act. On the other hand, Whirlpool argued that the Complainant failed to provide documentary proof or a report from an approved laboratory demonstrating the alleged manufacturing defects in the refrigerator. Additionally, it claimed that it was not obligated to offer after-sale services for free and that if the Complainant chose to seek service from the manufacturer, it would be a paid service. The Service Provider appeared before the District Commission but did not file a written version of its submissions. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission noted that both Whirlpool and the Seller were playing the glam game rather than rectifying the defects in the refrigerator. Further, the District Commission noted a mail presented by the Seller which indicated that Whirlpool offered to replace the product to the Complainant but the Complainant was asking for an additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The District Commission deemed it as an acknowledgment of a manufacturing defect by Whirlpool. The District Commission, referring to the argument made by the Seller that it was protected by Section 220 of the Indian Contract Act, held that there was an express agreement between the Seller and Whirlpool, where the Seller had agreed to provide the after-sale services to the consumers for the products sold through its store during the warranty period. Therefore, the District Commission noted that the parties resorted to a blame game against each other without providing after-sale service during the warranty period causing mental agony to the Complainant. Consequently, the District Commission held the Seller and Whirlpool liable for deficiency in service and directed them to either refund the amount to the Complainant or provide a replacement with a new refrigerator. Further, it also directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs. Case Title: Soornapudi Sridevi vs Reliance Retail Limited vs Others, Case No.: CC/31/2023 Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant in person Advocate for the Respondent: Hari Mehar, S Barani Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Vishakhapatnam District Commission Holds Whirlpool India And Reliance Retail Liable For Selling And Failing To Refund/Replace Defective Refrigerator

Smita Singh

Tags