Date of filing: 18.03.2021
Date of disposal:30.12.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN. M.Com.,ICWA(Inter), B.L., .....MEMBER-II
CC. No.23/2021
THIS FRIDAY, THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Rohit Kumar Thakur,
S/o.Late Naresh Mohan Thakur,
No.10,Hawa Nagar, Mittnamalli,
IAF, Avadi, Chennai -600 055. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
1.LG Electronics India Limited,
A-24/6, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044.
2.Reliance Retail Limited,
Flat:41&42, CTH Road,
Ambattur, Chennai -600 053. ......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : party in person.
Counsel for the 1st opposite party : Mr.T.R.Kumaravel, Advocate.
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : exparte.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.12.2022 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and : M/s.S.Venkata Krishna Kumar, Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr.T.R.Kumaravel Advocate, counsel for the 1st opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in the purchase of Air Conditioner along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the product and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused by the complainant due to the deficiency in service and along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service in the purchase of LG (SPILT) AC, Model No.KS-018GWZD 1.5 ton vide receipt No.CIN No.001100H199LC120563. The panel display was not proper from 03.08.2019 showing CH 38 code which is the code for Gas exhausted as per manual. Though it was attended by the mechanics from Reliance as well as LG service center the problem could not be rectified. Online complaint was registered through NCHAPP (Grievance No.1663766) on 11.10.2019 at 18.19 hours and gas filling was done but the problem is still persist. Thus the present complaint was filed by the aggrieved complainant for the following reliefs;
To replace the defective product;
To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused by the complainant due to the deficiency in service and along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 1st opposite party:-
The 1st opposite party denied the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the first complaint was given on 12.05.2020 during Corona period and hence it could not be attended immediately but attended post lockdown. Again the second complaint was given on 09.06.2020 the service engineer immediately visited the complainant’s house and found that there was gas leakage problem in the Air Conditioner which was rectified free of cost. The company remarks in Job sheet says “parts have been changed and gas was refilled and now set is working fine”. The complainant gave a complaint again on 03.11.2020 for which the service engineer contacted the complainant and asked for appointment but the complainant said that the AC was working fine and no service was needed, but in the complaint the complainant gave false information that the service engineer attended but not rectified the problem. Further, it was submitted that the complainant was servicing notice only to wrong address and that they were always ready to prove that there was only gas leakage problem which can occur due to various external factors. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint alleging that there is no deficiency in service on their side.
The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on their side. On the side of 1st opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1to Ex.B3 was filed by them. Despite service of notice the 2nd opposite party did not appear before this commission and hence he was called absent and was set exparte on 11.04.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within mandatory period.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the alleged deficiency in service against the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Tax Invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A1;
Copy of message received from Reliance and LG was marked as Ex.A2;
Online NCHAPP print copy was marked as Ex.A3;
Warranty card was marked as Ex.A4;
Postal receipt for the proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A5;
Acknowledgment card for the proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A6;
Track consignment for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A7;
On the side of the 1st opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their contention;
Job sheet dated 12.05.2020 was marked as Ex.B1;
Job sheet dated 09.06.2020 was marked as Ex.B2;
Job sheet dated 03.11.2020 was marked as Ex.B3;
The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the party in person/complainant is that the Air Conditioner he had purchased from the 2nd opposite party and manufactured by the 1st opposite party suffers with certain defects. The panel display always shows CH 38 code though it was serviced for several times by the 2nd opposite party, the same did not change. Thus he sought for the replacement of the product along with compensation.
On the other hand on the part of the 1st opposite party, it was argued that the party in person/complainant did not produce sufficient evidence to show that the product suffers with some inherent defect. Further he argued that at all times of complains made by the complainant the product was serviced by the 2nd opposite party’s technician. Thus alleged that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
On perusal of the pleading and materials produced by both the parties it is seen that vide the Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 the product was serviced several times. Further an online grievance was also filed by the complainant vide Ex.A3. In the exhibits produced by the opposite parties we could find that the issue was “error code issue“ which was found in Ex.B1 dated 12.05.2020 again in Ex.B2 dated 19.06.2020 and also in Ex.B3 dated 03.11.2020. The complainant had specifically pleaded that the said defect in the panel display appears though serviced more than six times by the technicians of Reliance and LG service center . Still the above said defect could not be rectified.
Apparently the service report/job sheet and filing of Grievance by the complainant proves that the product supplied to the complainant suffers with certain defect to be rectified. It is seen that the product was purchased on 11.05.2019 and the alleged problem started from 03.08.2019 well within the warranty period as provided by the opposite parties. No proper explaination was given by the opposite parties for the allegation of error code made and proved by the complainant. In such circumstance we hold that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not rectifying the defect to the satisfaction of the complainant/consumer. This point is answered accordingly in favour of complainant.
Point No.2:-
With regard to the relief to be granted, though the complainant has sought for replacement of the product, as the opposite parties are ready to service the defects, we direct the opposite parties to rectify the defect within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get refund of the cost of the product on surrendering the Air Conditioner to the opposite parties as if not rectified. It is clear that the error occurs due to some manufacturing inherent defect which could not be rectified. For the hardship suffered by the complainant due to the defective product we award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to be paid jointly and severely by the opposite parties. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. This point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severely directed
a) to rectify the defects found in the LG (SPLIT) AC, Model No.KS-018GWZD 1.5 ton within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order or in alternative to refund the cost of the AC Rs.46,500/-(Rupees forty six thousand and five hundred only) within two weeks thereafter;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within two weeks after the expiry of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30th day of December 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 .............. Tax Invoice. Xerox
Ex.A2 ............. Copy of message received from Reliance and LG. Xerox
Ex.A3 .............. Online NCHAPP print copy. Xerox
Ex.A4 ............. Warranty card. Xerox
Ex.A5 ........... Postal receipt for proof of delivery. Xerox
Ex.A6 ........... Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A7 ............. Tract consignment for proof of delivery. Xerox
List of documents filed by the 1st opposite party:-
Ex.B1 12.05.2020 Job Sheet. Xerox
Ex.B2 09.06.2020 Job Sheet. Xerox
Ex.B3 03.11.2020 Job Sheet. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
