Complaint taken on file: 30.11.2017

                                                                                                                            Order delivered on: 30.09.2022

BEFORE THE HON´BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION, ARIYALUR

PRESENT:

Dr.V.Ramaraj M.L, P.hd: President

Mr.N.Balu B.A, B.L : Member - I

Mrs.V.Lavanya B.A., B.L : Member - II

Consumer Complaint (RBT) No. 203/2022

Friday, the thirtieth day of September, 2022

Mrs.Rini Mujeeb, W/o.Mujeeb

Plot No.1, G4, Lord Krishna Enclave

Valmiki Street, Saligramam

Chennai - 600 093                                                              ...                       Complainant

-Vs-

1. Adishwar India Ltd,

    New No:32, Old No:25/1, Arunachalam Road,

    Saligramam, Chennai - 600 017

2.  Adishwar India Ltd,

    Regd Office: 146, 11th Cross,

    1st Main, 2nd Stage, West of Chord Road,

    Bangalore, Karnataka - 560 086                

3  .The Regional Manager,

    LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd,

    31A, 2nd Floor, Ambit Park Road,

    Ambttur Industrial Estate,

    Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058                                    ...            Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant: M/s. S.Mohan

Counsel for Opposite Parties: Mr. T.R.Kumaravel

On perusal of records in this case, we delivered the following

ORDER

Pronounced by Mr.N.Balu: Member-I

Adopted by Dr.V.Ramaraj, President and Mrs.V.Lavanya, Member-II

1.     The Complainant has filed this case as against the Opposite Parties claiming the replacement of her defective Air Conditioner or to refund the cost of the same (Rs.28,300/-), to pay Rs.10,588/- paid towards Happy Living Plan, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to her because of the deficiency in the service of the opposite parties and the cost of this case.

The facts of complaint in brief:

2.         The complainant purchased a 1.5.ton split Air Conditioner (model No: ASA5BW5NTY) from the 1st Opposite Party on 22.11.2010 for Rs.28,300/-.  The A.C machine started to fall repair from day one and it continued till the time of filing this complaint. Whenever she reported to the first opposite party, they advised her to contact the service center attached to the 3rd O.P and accordingly she approached them and they used to send their employees every time to do the repair works. That kind of repairs occurred at least 10 times every month.   

3.    At one point of time, one of the service engineers claiming himself as a representative of 3rd O.P company visited her home suggested that this particular model A.C is a failure model, the company has stopped producing it and assured that he would make necessary arrangements to replace the same. On 24.09.2011 the complainant has opted for L.G´s Happy Living plan which provides extended warranty to customers for years during which period the customers get service and available spare parts free of cost. The complainant has bought 2 HLP´s together for the periods from 22.11.2011 to 21.11.2014 and from 22.11.2014 to 21.11.2017 by paying Rs.5294/- each totaling Rs.10,588/- at once for getting free service and free spare parts for a total period of 6 years.

4.     From the very beginning the A.C machine never functioned properly, the service personnel of the Opposite Parties said that the model itself was a failure model and the company itself has stopped producing this particular model. The 1st O.P being well aware of this fact has purposefully sold this model to the complainant and that was the reason why the spare parts like display of the A.C machine or the display coil or some other part of the same failed one after the other very often in spite of repairing them again and again. The A.C machine has not functioned properly even for 2 days continuously.  The complainant has made representations to the Opposite Parties by various means like phone calls, What’s App messages and e-mails, the Opposite Parties always used to give evasive replies and false promises instead of solving the problem at once by giving the replacement of the product.

5.     The 1st O.P intentionally sold the defective product. the 2nd O.P being the Head Office of the 1st O.P is equally liable for the mistakes committed by its branch. The 3rd O.P being the manufacturer and service provider is also equally liable for its failure, all the services were carried out by the service center personnel who work under the 3rd O.P. Hence all the 3 Opposite Parties are jointly liable to replace the defective product. The 3rd O.P sent a reply mail to complainant on 25.04.2017 apologizing the inconvenience caused to the complainant and also assured to resolve the issue at the earliest. But neither of the Opposite Parties took any step to replace the product in spite of several mails from complainant’s side thereafter.

6.         The complainant suffered physical injury besides mental agony and economic loss because of the continuous failure of the A.C machine. Hence the complainant sent legal notice on 04.07.2017. The notice addressed to 3rd party´s Anna Salai branch returned stating ¨Party Left¨. Hence Notice dated 25.07.2017 was sent to the current 3rd O.P. They received the Notice but none of the Opposite Parties chose to give any reply to the Legal Notice. She demands that the Opposite parties should be jointly and severally made liable to give replacement of the defective A.C machine or to refund its value of Rs.28,300/- and the amount of Rs.10,588/- paid towards Happy Living Plan with interest, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to give Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

The facts of written version of Opposite Parties 1 to 3:

7.         The Opposite parties jointly say in their written version that the Complainant is factually wrong. The 3rd O.P company L.G Electronics is one of the leading electronic manufacturers and is popular all over the world. All the products of the 3rd O.P are pre checked and pass through strict quality control process and therefore there is absolutely no chance for such defective product.

8.         The complainant has opted to enter into the Happy Living Plan of the 3rd O.P after about one year from the date of purchase of the product on 22.11.2011 and that too for 2 terms together, one from 22.11.2011 to 21.11.2014 and the other from 22.11.2014 to 21.11.2017 which ensures free service and available free spare parts throughout the entire HLP period and at the time of entering into such HLP contract with 3rd O.P on 24.09.2011, the complainant did not complain anything about the performance of the A.C machine but happily paid for the HLP plan.

9.     The complainant has used the product for 7 years. Around 34 times, service or repair works have been carried out to the product free of cost because of the HLP contract. It is common for electronic goods to get damaged due to power fluctuation. In this case also, such kind of power fluctuation or problem might have existed in the electricity wiring system in complainant´s home. They have also given the details of 34 services done by them through their service engineers from 23.11.2010 to 08.04.2017. The complainant has suppressed the services done by 3rd O.P but has concocted a story as if the product was defective one from the date of purchase and then has sent messages and e-mails to the Opposite Parties only to create a fake story.

10.   The Opposite Parties’ claim that HLP is some kind of Annual maintenance plan which is in place to rectify the problems and to change the available spare parts free of cost. The complainant has utilized the 2 HLP’s. Whenever she complained of any repair, service engineers from the side of the Opposite Parties visited her home and serviced the A.C machine. Nearly 34 times services or repair works have been carried out by the Opposite Parties  free of cost. The repairs could occur to electric goods due to low voltage or due to bad wiring system in complainant’s home. After using a product for seven years, how can it be replaced with an entirely new product, it was not possible as per the terms and conditions laid down in the HLP contract document. The complainant is well aware of it but is concocting this story only to gain wrongfully from the Opposite Parties.

11.  Points to be considered:

1).    Whether the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in his service as alleged by the complainant? If yes, what is the relief the complainant is entitled to?

2).    Whether compensation can be awarded to the complainant?

3).    What are the other reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Point No: 1

12.    The Opposite Parties state in their written version that the complainant has opted to enter into the Happy Living Plan of the 3rd O.P on 22.11.2011 after about one year from the date of purchase of the A.C machine and that too for 2 terms together, one from 22.11.2011 to 21.11.2014 and the other one from for the period 22.11.2014 to 21.11.2017 which ensures free service and free replacement of spare parts throughout the entire HLP period and at the time of entering into such HLP contract with 3rd O.P on 24.09.2011, the complainant did not complain anything about the performance of the A.C machine but happily paid for the HLP plan. The complainant states that the A.C machine fell repair from day one and it continued till the time of filing this complaint. Whenever she reported to the first opposite party, they advised her to contact the service center attached to the 3rd O.P and accordingly she approached them and they used to send their employees every time to do the repair works. That kind of repairs occurred at least 10 times every month. 

13.    If the complainant’s statement was true, she would not have entered into 2 “Happy Living Plans” with the Opposite Parties one by one on 17.07.2011 and on 24.09.2011 after about 8 months and 10 months from the date of purchase. She could have filed this complaint well in advance but she has waited till the end of the HLP plans and at the end of the HLP period she files this complaint seeking replacement. Even though the service engineers insisted, she has ignored to check whether there was any problem like wiring system or low voltage in her home, she failed to examine the same. The complainant has stated that at one point of time a person claiming himself to be a service engineer representing the 3rd O.P company visited her home and suggested that this particular model A.C is a failure model, the company has stopped producing it and assured that he would make necessary arrangements to replace the same. But the complainant has not stated any date of his visit or has not given necessary evidence to prove that a service engineer from the 3rd O.P company visited and assured to replace the faulty A.C machine. Hence there is no reliability in the point of the complainant that the representative of 3rd Opposite Party assured replacement. This commission finds that the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands. She has suppressed some vital material facts that the opposite parties have informed her that there could be some error in the wiring system of her home or low voltage problem. Therefore, this commission concludes that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in their service. The point no.1 is answered.

Point No: 2

14.. The contention of the Opposite Parties that the complainant has concocted a story that the product of the Opposite Parties was defective one and is making effort to get unlawful gain from the Opposite Parties using this commission as a platform is accepted. The complainant has used the A,C machine for 7 years and the Opposite Parties have properly serviced as and when requested by the complainant and have carried out the repair works. Thus Point No. 2 is answered as follows: Perusing the documents submitted by the complainant and the Opposite parties, it is finally concluded that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has not proved his case with necessary evidence. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have proved that there is no fault on their part and therefore they are relieved from this case.

15.  Point No.3:

      The first and second points reveal that there is no fault on the side of the Opposite Parties. They have not committed any deficiency in their business or in their service to the complainant. Hence the question as to whether they caused mental agony to the complainant is answered as follows: The complainant has failed to prove her case that the Opposite Parties intentionally caused mental agony with a negligent and lethargic attitude and hence they cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the complainant The complaint does not deserve any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

As result this Commission passes the following ORDER:

            The complainant has failed to prove her case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. The parties have to bear their expenses.

       This Order was dictated by me to the steno, today the thirtieth day of September, 2022, was taken notes in short-hand and then typed in computer and corrected by him and was pronounced by us in the open court today.

                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                            Member - I

                                                                                                            Member -II

Exhibits marked by the Complainant:

Exhibit marked by the Opposite Party:

Witness examined by the Complainant:  Rini Mujeeb (Complainant)

Witness examined by the Opposite Party:  S.Gopalakrishnan

                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                            Member – I

                                                                                                            Member -II