Date of Filing: 25.02.2019
Date of Order: 17.03.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Wednesday the 17th day of March, 2021
C.C.No. 73 of 2019
Between
Sri. V. Venkateswarlu ,S/o Sri. V. Ramaiah,
Aged about 55 years, Occ: Pvt Employee,
R/o: Flat No. 303, A Wing,
Metro Residency, Near Srinivasa Textiles ,
Ram Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020.
….Complainant
And
1. M/s Reliance Retail Ltd,
MPM Mall, 3-6-553 to 558 & 558/1,
Himayathnagar Main Road,
Hyderabad – 500 029.
2. LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd,
LG Product Service and Support,
A Wing, (3rd Floor),
D-3, District Center Saket,
New Delhi – 110017.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Mr. M. Surya Prakash
Counsel for the Opposite parties No.1 & 2 : Mr.Vamaraju Sri Krishnudu
O R D E R
(By Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)on behalf of the Bench)
The present complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to change the defective purifier with a new one and also pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for giving him troubles in service and causing mental agony and another amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expense to the complainant and to pay the cost of the LG water purifier Rs. 21,840.50ps and Rs. 3,909/- the RCP amount along with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of purchase i.e, 13.05.2017 till realization and costs, any other order/s be passed as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
1. The case of the complainant in brief :
The complainant has purchased a LG Water purifier on 13.05.2017 vide Sales order No. 105/11 for a sum of Rs. 21,840/- from opposite party No.1 at the same time he opted AMC vide serial No. 116569 for a period of one year i.e, from the date of purchase i.e, 13.05.2017 to 13.05.2018 and further also took RCP for a period of two years starting from 13.05.2018 to 13.05.2020 both from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 3909/.
It is the contention of the complainant that the above said purifier was troubling him with frequent problems and the LG company i.e, the opposite party No.2 though gave the required service by changing the Coal & candle during the warranty period , the problems could not be rectified and the complainant could not make use of the product to his satisfaction. He further submitted that the real problem aroused in the month of July 2018 and on raising the complaint with opposite party No.1, it totally neglected to provide the service stating that they have no role to play after sales and when the opposite party No.2 was contacted, it totally evaded its service stating that since the RCP cover was taken from opposite party No.1, it is the opposite party No.1 who was responsible for providing any service. Several calls were made to both opposite parties but none of them gave service to the complainant. Due to the defective product delivered to him, he and his family members fell sick, and incurred huge amounts towards Medical expenses apart from the mental agony and trauma undergone by the complainant. Complainant also issued a Legal notice dt. 21.12.2018 demanding the opposite party No.1 & 2 to replace water purified with a new one and pay compensation and costs but despite receipt of notices , opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to reply nor made any attempt to resolve the problem or replaced the product. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the present complaint.
2. Version of opposite party in brief:-
Opposite party No.1 submitted that the complainant has used the water purified without any problem and without any defect for a long time i.e, till the filing of this complaint and even according to the complainant, the real trouble stated from July 2018. Till then, the water purifier was working in good condition without any defect and till the date of issuing notice on 21.12.2018, the complainant never alleged any manufacture defect and never brought to its notice at any time after the purchase of the product and immediately after the receipt of notices, their technician visited the house of complainant and found that due to the loose contact in the switch board the problem aroused and the same was rectified and the complainant refused to sign the job card. Except the vague and baseless allegations, the complainant has not specifically mentioned as to what was the actual defect in the water purifier. If the product really suffered from any manufacturing defect and if the same was brought to their notice within 7 days of purchase, the defective product would have been replaced but the said allegation was never brought to its notice prior to legal notice and after the legal notice, the OP No.1 on sending its technician found that the product was working in good condition except the problem in Switch board in complainants house and the same was fixed. Further the product can be replaced / refunded with the price only when there is a manufacturing defect and the complainant has not proved the manufacturing defect, as such the relief claimed by the complainant cannot be granted. More so, such a relief can be granted only by opposite party No.2 and not by them. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complainant against it.
Opposite party No.2 is called absent inspite of the notice served.
3. In the course of enquiry, the complainant has filed evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complainant and got marked exhibits Ex.A1 to A7. The opposite parties are no documents are marked on their behalf and Written arguments are filed by both parties. Heard both parties.
On a consideration of the material brought on record, the following points have emerged for consideration.
- Whether the complainant has made out a case of deficiency
of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite
parties.? - If so, to what relief.?
4. Point No.1:-
Admittedly, the complainant has purchased a Water purified vide 105/11 from opposite party No.1 on 13.05.2017 for a sum of Rs. 21,840/- and further also availed the services of AMC and RCP by paying a sum of Rs. 3,999/-. The period of AMC started from the date of purchase i.e, 13.05.2017 to 13.05.2018 and the RAC was covered from 13.05.2018 to 13.05.2020 during which, the opposite party shall effect repairs free of costs. The opposite party No.2 is the
manufacturer of the product purchased by the complainant. It is the specific contention of the complainant that the product purchased by him suffered from one defect or the other since the date of purchase and the opposite party No.2 though provided him with the required service by changing the coal and candle during the warranty period thereafter , there was no response to the various complaints raised by the complainant even though the services demanded were during the RAC period. The complainant submitted that a defective product was supplied to him due to which the product gave him frequent trouble.
Whereas the opposite parties resisted the complaint stating that the complainant never approached them with any problem or for any service until the receipt of Legal notice and only in the legal notice issued by the complainant, it was alleged for the very first time that there was a problem in the product and when the opposite parties attended to the repairs, they found that the problem was with the switch board in the complainant’s house and not with any problem in the product.
On careful perusal of the pleadings of both parties and the documents on record, we observe that in the entire complaint, there is no specific pleading taken by the complainant stating that the product purchased by him suffered from a particular problem. Further there is also no single document placed on record by the complaint to show that either during the warranty period or after the warranty period there were complaints raised with the opposite parties calling for any repairs or rectification of the product.
Without there being any proof of complaint raised or the service demanded by the complainant, we cannot come to a conclusion that the water purifier gave trouble from the date of purchase.
Further, the complainant claiming for replacement of the product he needs to file expert evidence showing that the product suffered from some inherent defect or in alternative , he needs to show that the product purchased by him repeatedly gave problem and despite effecting several repairs to it, the same could not be put to use. The repeated repairs carried out can be proved by filing the job cards/job sheets obtained from opposite parties.
Based on the circumstances discussed above, we strongly feel that the complainant has not made out any case against the opposite parties. He has failed to prove any defect or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence there is no merit in the case as such the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances no costs.
5. Point No.3
In the result, this complaint is dismissed as no order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this 17th the day of March, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1– Copy of Bill issued by opposite party No.1 dt. 13.05.2017.
Ex.A2 – Copy of AMC receipt No. 116569 dt.13.05.2017 issued by Op No.1.
Ex.A3 - Copy of Broacher of AMC coverage.
Ex.A4 – Copy of Office copy of Legal notice dt. 21.12.2018.
Ex.A5 – Copy of Postal receipts (2 Nos) dt. 24.12.2018.
Ex.A6 - Copy of Acknowledgment card of Opposite party No.1.
Ex.A7 - Copy of Track Report for service of notice issued by Indian post.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Nil.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
