PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 156/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member

Ritik Saha,

S/O- Kishore Saha,

R/O-Daily Market, Bishnu Mandir Pada, Burla, PO/PS-Burla,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                       ….…......Complainant.

                                    -Vrs.-

1. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

Represented through its CEO BonngSeok Kwon, A Wing

2. Jyoti Electronics

Represented through its Proprietor Jyoti Mohapatra,

R/O-Daily Market, Burla, PO/PS-Burla,

Dist-Sambalpur-768017, Odisha.

3. M.S. Electronics, represented through its proprietor Sudarsan Mishra,

At-Near LIC Office, Budharaja, Po- Budharaja, PS-Ainthapali,

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. G.P. Lal & Associates
2. For the O.P. No. 1              :- Sri. S.K. Mohanty & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.2                :- Ex-parte
4. For the O.P.No.3                :- Sri. R.Gupta & Associates

Date of Filing:02.05.2024,  Date of Hearing :01.10.2024  Date of Judgement : 25.11.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased a refrigerator from the OP No. 2 on 23.04.2024 for his use which costs Rs. 23,000/-. As per warranty card attached with manual book the warranty period of the compressor is 10 years from the date of purchase. In the year 2024, the compressor of the above refrigerator was not working properly as such the Complainant immediately informed the OP No. 2 about the problem and as per advise by the OP No. 2, the Complainant informed the OP No. 3 as he is the authorized service centre being authorized by the OP No. 1. After registered the complain of the Complainant, the OP No. 3 reached the residence of the Complainant on dtd. 17.02.2024. After checking the refrigerator, he informed the Complainant that the compressor of the above refrigerator became damaged and needs to be replaced. The Complainant shown him the warranty card issued by the OP No. 2 at the time of purchase but the OP No. 3 did not pay any attention to it and told him that if he will pay the amount of the compressor then he will replace it. On compulsion the Complainant paid in total Rs. 7370.30 to the OP No. 3. It is an unfair trade practice while the warranty period is there then the act of the OP No. 3 is an unceremonious, un-regenerated one and against the basic principle of law. After digressed with the behavior of the Op no. 3, the Complainant immediately informed the whole matters to the customer care of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd but till date no action has been taken. Hence this case.
2. The Version of the OP No. 1 is that the alleged Refrigerator was claimed to be purchased on 13.08.2015 with one year warranty which is valid up to 13.08.2019 and an additional 10 year warranty is provided on the Compressor only. No claim for service was registered within the 1^st year warranty period. The claim for the service was lodged for the year 2024, alleging a defect in the compressor and the same was registered and a technical person deputed through OP No. 3, the authorized service center. On observation it is detected that the refrigerator was tampered by an unauthorized person for which under clause 8 and 5 of the warranty conditions the warranty on the compressor became void. It is detected that the dryer of the refrigerator was replaced with local compatible spares and not the spares provided by the manufacturer. The terms of warranty are in writing and this is not a case of silence in the terms of warranty. The Complainant is well aware of the terms of the warranty and being satisfied with the terms consented to availing repair on a chargeable basis. After availing of the service being fully satisfied he shared the happiness code, as a token of gesture and satisfied consumer.

The Version of the OP No. 3 is that there is no conflict of interest among OP No. 3 and OP No. 1 for which the OP No. 3 adopts the contents of the written statement filed by OP No. 1. The alleged Refrigerator was claimed to be purchased on 13.08.2015 with one year warranty which is valid up to 13.08.2019 and an additional 10 years warranty is provided on the Compressor only. No claim for service was registered within one year warranty period. The claim for the service was lodged for the year 2024, alleging a defect in the compressor and the same was registered and a technical person deputed through OP No. 3, the authorized service center. On observation it is detected that the refrigerator was tampered by an unauthorized person for which under clause 8 and clause 5 of the warranty conditions the warranty on the compressor became void. It is detected that the dryer of the refrigerator was replaced with local compatible spares and not the spares provided by the manufacturer. The terms of warranty are in writing and this is not a case of silence in the terms of warranty. The Complainant is well aware of the terms of the warranty and being satisfied with the terms consented to availing repair on a chargeable basis. After availing of the service, being fully satisfied he shared the happiness code, as a token of gesture and satisfied consumer. The Complainant admitted availing services from outside mechanics by replacing spares like a drier and Gas charging.There is no dispute to be adjudicated in the present complaint and no specific allegations are framed against OP No. 1. The allegations never make out a complaint to be adjudicated under the Consumer Disputes Act, 2019. The Complainant cannot claim any relief without establishing an alleged manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator, commission of deficiency in services and adoption of unfair trade practices by way of violating the terms of the warranty.

3. After going through the records, evidences and submission of parties, in the version, the OP No. 1 & 3 mentioned that “it is observed that It is detected that the dryer of the refrigerator was replaced with local compatible spares and not the spares provided by the manufacturer”. But there is no concrete evidence regarding the same. It is not established that the photographs submitted by the OP No. 1 & 3 are genuine or not as there is no signature of the Complainant and OPs. Further there is no job card in which it is mentioned the alleged allegation of the OPs which proved the same.  Hence the O.P No. 1 as manufacturer is liable for giving compensation to the Complainant. Accordingly it is ordered.

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on merit. The O.P No. 1 is directed to return the amount of Rs. 7,370.30 towards the repairing charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 25^th day of Nov, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.