DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 92 OF 2019
Date of filing Date of Admission Date of judgment
18.7.2019 25.7.2019 20.3.2020
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member : Jagadish Ch. Barmn
COMPLAINANT : Sumitava Sarkar,
192, Green Park, Narendrapur, Kolkata- 700103.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. A Wing (3rd Floor), D-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017.
2. LG Service Centre, Tirupati Enclave, 30/3, N.S.C Bose Road, Narendrapur, Kolkata-700084.
3. Great Eastern Trading Co. 433, Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084.
For the complainant : Self.
For the O.P. Nos. 1&2 : Sri Arun Kumar Bag
For the O.P. No. 3 : None
J U D G M E N T
Sri Asish Kumar Sanapati , President
This is a complaint under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986.
One Sumitava Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the case against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps) , praying for compensation , alleging deficiency in service.
The gist of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant purchased a refrigerator being Model No.LGM292RPZL Serial No. 510 NRKA017525 from the O.P-3 vide Tax Invoice no.12/SA/1516/12834 dated 18.10.2015. After expiry of the warranty period , the refrigerator was not cooling food and other essential articles. On 10.4.2019 the matter was reported to the O.P-2. The Service Engineer of the OP No.2 inspected the refrigerator and found one parts was damaged /not functioning and informed that the parts was not at stock and it would take few days to procure the same from other sources. An official complaint was lodged on their helpline on 12.4.2019. The complainant also agreed to accept the offer of the O.P-2 regarding payment of charges as the service was beyond the warranty period. In spite of that, the O.P. No. 2 was silent for a considerable period. The complainant lodged complaint on 19.4.2019, 24.4.2019 and received a call from L.G Electronics Pvt. Ltd. saying that spare parts was not available in India and they were ready to give a discount of Rs.6440/- if the complainant intended to buy a new LG Refrigerator in lieu of old one. The complainant did not accept the offer. On 26.4.2019 the complainant sent an email to the O.P-1 with a request to resolve the issue , but of no result. Then the complainant applied to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice on 29.4.2019 and received a message from the O.Ps intimating that his service request was closed on 22.5.2019. The complainant received a whatsapp message from the O.P-2 ,stating that the refrigerator parts was available and requested the complainant to give opportunity for repair and the complainant intimated through mail that he was out of station and would return on 31.5.2019 to attend Consumer Affairs Office on 31.05.19 but none of the O.Ps appeared before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice for mediation on 31.05.19. The complainant has prayed for a direction upon the O.Ps to pay Rs.23000/- towards the cost of refrigerator and compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental agony and harassment.
The O.P Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing written version on 30.5.2019 contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the specific case of the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 that the problem of the refrigerator of the complainant was detected by their Engineer but the refrigerator could not be repaired due to non-availability of the parts and assured the complainant that the repairing would be done within a short span of time. It is also the case of the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 that the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 gave alternative offer to the complainant that after deduction of depreciation cost, the refrigerator might be replaced by a new one , if the complainant wanted to get the discount on payment of price of the new refrigerator. The O.Ps also offered to repair the same absolutely free of cost but the complainant was not agreeable to accept the offer and the complainant only wanted to replace the same . The O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The O.P-3 did not turn up in spite of service of notice.
On the basis of the written complaint and the written version following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:-
- Is the complainant a consumer under the C.P Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Have the OPs. any deficiency in service?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief against the O.P?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 : The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant purchased an LG make refrigerator from the O.P No. 3 on payment and the OPs did not render proper service.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the O.P Nos.1&2 has not argued on this point.
We have gone through the written complaint, the written version , evidence on affidavit of the complainant and documents filed by both sides. Admittedly the complainant purchased an LG make refrigerator from the O.P No. 3 on payment.
On a careful consideration, we find that the complainant is a consumer in terms of Provision under C.P Act, 1986.
Point no.2 :
The ld. Advocate for the complainant contends that this Forum has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is argued that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claim amount is also within the pecuniary limit of District Forum.
The ld. Advocate for the O.P submits that the case is not maintainable.
On perusal of the materials on record and on a careful consideration of submissions of both sides, we hold that this Forum has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Point no.3 & 4 :
The ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the O.Ps finally repaired the refrigerator on 6.1.2020 by changing the damaged parts. He prays for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh for his mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and litigation cost.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P nos. 1 and 2 submits that O.Ps have already repaired the refrigerator free of cost and they have no deficiency in service . He prays for dismissal of the case.
We have gone through the written complaint, the written version, evidence of the complainant and Xerox copies of documents, brief notes of arguments filed by the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 and the petition filed by the complainant dated 10.2.2020 .
Admittedly, the complainant purchased a refrigerator of the O.P-3 on payment of Rs.23,000/- vide Tax Invoice dated 18.10.2015. Admittedly, the complainant requested for service from the O.P-2 as his refrigerator had some problems on 10.4.2019. It is the case of the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 that they tried their best to provide services to the complainant, but they could not repair the same immediately due to non-availability of damaged parts. According to the complainant, he received whatsapp message on 22.5.2019 i.e more than 1 month after lodging the complaint that the refrigerator parts was available and the O.P-2 intended to repair the refrigerator but the refrigerator was repaired on 06.01.2020.
It is not understood what prevented the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 to repair the refrigerator during the period from 31.5.2019 to 5.1.2020. The explanation given by the O.P. Nos. 1&2 for non repairing of the refrigerator from 31.5.2019 to 5.1.2020 is not acceptable . The complainant purchased the refrigerator of L.G make with expectation that he would get good service. In our considered view, the O.P-2 ought to repair the refrigerator of the complainant by replacing the damaged parts just after availability of the said parts but the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 did not repair the refrigerator for a considerable period without any reason which tantamounts to deficiency in service . There was no necessity to file the Complaint Case on 18.07.17 if the OPs repaired the refrigerator by 17.07.19. We think that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.3000/- from the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 for deficiency in service as well as mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant. The Complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost of Rs.1000/- as inaction on the part of the OP No.2 to repair the refrigerator even after availability of the damaged parts , compelling the complainant to file the complaint. We find no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no.3 and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the O.P. No.3
Reasons for delay: The case was filed on 18.07.2019 and admitted on 25.07.2019. This Forum tried its best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of Section 13(3A) of the C.P Act, 1986 and the delay has been explained in day to day orders.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 with cost of Rs.1000/- and dismissed against O.P-3 without any cost.
The O.P Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant ,payable by 30 days from the date of this order , in default the entire amounts shall carry interest @10% p.a. till full realization thereof.
Let Copy of Final order be supplied to both parties/ their Agents/ Ld. Advocates free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me
President
