Ernakulam District Commission Holds Whirlpool India Liable for Service Deficiency

July 13, 2024

The Ernakulam District Commission, under the leadership of Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran, and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., determined Whirlpool India’s responsibility for service deficiency. This was due to the sale of a product with manufacturing defects and their failure to address these issues after receiving complaints. However, the Commission dismissed the case against Bismi Connect, stating that dealers cannot be held accountable for manufacturing defects.

Summary of Case Facts

The complainant purchased a refrigerator from Bismi Connect, a dealer, which was manufactured by Whirlpool India, the manufacturer, for a total of Rs. 37,901. Upon delivery and installation, the complainant discovered a significant manufacturing defect—a 3-inch rupture in the fridge’s inner body. Despite promptly notifying the dealer and subsequent attempts to resolve the issue, including sending legal notices, neither the manufacturer nor the dealer took adequate corrective measures. This situation resulted in mental distress, financial losses, and disruptions to the complainant’s daily activities. Consequently, the complainant filed a formal complaint with the District Commission seeking a refund for the refrigerator’s cost and compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000 for the inconvenience caused, in addition to Rs. 1,000 to cover litigation expenses.

The opposing party argued that dealers are solely responsible for replacing defective parts rather than replacing the entire product. They also contended that the complainant failed to present expert evidence substantiating a defect warranting complete replacement. Furthermore, they denied causing any mental anguish, financial loss, or job disruptions to the complainant. They urged the Commission to dismiss the complaint, citing a lack of evidence supporting claims of service deficiency or unfair trade practices. Additionally, they noted that the case against the manufacturer proceeded ex parte.

The District Commission noted that under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the complainant met the criteria as a consumer by virtue of purchasing the refrigerator, supported by a valid invoice. The commission underscored that despite multiple requests for resolution, both the manufacturer and dealer failed to adequately address the complaints raised. It highlighted that the complainant’s evidence, including the invoice, initial complaint, postal receipts, and legal notice, remained uncontested by the manufacturer. This failure to rebut strengthened the credibility of the complainant’s assertions regarding the defective product and deficient service.

Referring to various legal precedents, the commission supported its findings. In V.P. Asokan v. M/S Carrier Company, it established that dealers bear legal obligations to facilitate repairs and provide satisfactory after-sales service. Similarly, in Dr. Thirumeny M.J v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd, the commission highlighted that failing to contest allegations or submit a written defense bolsters the complainant’s case. The case of Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v. Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Another illustrated that products requiring frequent repairs shortly after purchase indicate defects, holding both the manufacturer and seller accountable. Lastly, Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and Another clarified that expert evidence is indispensable only in complex cases, as straightforward defects are apparent without expert testimony.

Based on the evidence presented, the Commission held the manufacturer liable for the manufacturing defects, negligence, and resulting losses incurred by the complainant. However, it absolved the dealer from liability, emphasizing their role as sellers rather than manufacturers of the product. Furthermore, the commission underscored the manufacturer’s obligation to uphold consumer protection standards, stressing their responsibility to ensure product quality and safety.

As a result, the District Commission upheld the complaint against the manufacturer and ordered Whirlpool to reimburse the refrigerator’s purchase price. Additionally, Whirlpool was directed to compensate Rs. 25,000 for service deficiencies, unfair trade practices, and mental distress, along with Rs. 10,000 to cover the litigation expenses.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in