Sumer Chand Saini filed a consumer case on 15 Dec 2016 against Anand Electronics in the Jind Consumer Court. The case no is CC/60/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 15 Dec 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, JIND.
Complaint Case No. 60 of 2016
Date of Institution: 13.5.2016
Date of Decision : 15.12.2016
Sumer Chand Saini son of Sh. Ram Kumar Saini resident of Ward No.7 Safidon, Tehsil Safidon District Jind.
….Complainant.
Versus
Anand Electronics near Govt. School, Old Bus Stand Safidon City, 126112 District Jind through its Prop. Manoj son of Shyam Lal r/o Safidon District Jind.
Regd. Office of LG, A Wing (3rd Floor) D-3 District Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017.
Sarwan Kumar s/o Prem Kumar Prop. Of M/s S.K. Electronics near Durga Mandir near Central Bank of India, Sita Shyam Colony Ward No.10, Mahatma Gandhi Road Safidon (Jind) (Insurer of Freeze of L.G. Company).
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: SH.A.K. SARDANA PRESIDENT.
SMT. BIMLA SHEOKAND, MEMBER.
SH. M.K. KHURANA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. P.K. Attari Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. Mohit Sachdeva Adv. counsel for OPs.
ORDER:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a freeze having Model No. GL-245BEDGS for a sum of Rs.17,500/- from OP No.1 vide bill No. 37 on 12.7.2013. The employee of OP No.3 visited to the complainant on 11.9.2015 and told him that LG company is commencing a plan of insurance of the LG products in the title of the “Happy living plan” and offered him to get insurance policy of his freeze and told that the plan covers all the repairs and replacement of the product and thus the complainant purchased the aforesaid plan by making payment of Rs.933/- to OP No.3. After some time of purchase of insurance policy, liner cracks appeared in the body of the above said freeze and complainant contacted to OPs including OP No.3 for replacement of the freeze in question but they did not replace the freeze of the complainant. Complainant called the OPs on telephone toll free No.1800-180-9999 and LG customer care office got registered the complaint No. RNA-160318094715 but the freeze was not changed by the OPs. As such, the complainant has submitted that the OPs are admittedly deficient in not providing proper services to him and prayed that the complaint be accepted and OPs be directed to change the freeze or to pay the cost of freeze i.e. Rs.17,500/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain & harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered reply to the complaint raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and complainant has no cause of action & locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it has been urged that the complainant purchased the “Happy Living Plan” of the answering OP No.2. The cracks so developed in the body of the freeze of the complainant might be due to mishandling on the part of complainant. Upon receipt of the complaint, a service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and after checking the said freeze, he found that the cracks so developed in the body of the freeze are due to the mishandling on the part of the complainant. As such, OPs have urged that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To prove his contention, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant whereas counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of one Sh. Jyoti Prasad Chaturvedi, authorized signatory of OPs as Annexure R-X and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
4. We have heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant had purchased a refrigerator on 12.7.2013 and thereafter the employees of OP No.3 contacted the complainant on 11.9.2015 and advised him to take LG Company “Happy Living Plan” and offered him insurance policy of his refrigerator. On the advice of the OP No.3, the complainant purchased the aforesaid plan by making a payment of Rs.933/- on 11.9.2015. The said plan was valid from 11.9.2015 to 10.9.2016 but after purchase of the aforesaid plan, some liner cracks developed in the inner body of the refrigerator and thus the complainant lodged a complaint with the OPs No.2 &3 for replacement of refrigerator in question but the refrigerator has not been replaced by the OPs till today and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OPs argued that as per report of the service engineer of the company, the cracks so developed in the inner body of the refrigerator of the complainant are due to mishandling of the complainant. The counsel for OPs further argued that as per terms and conditions of the policy/AMC, the liner cracks are not covered and as such the company is not liable to replace the refrigerator and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
6. After hearing Ld. Counsel for parties and going through the record, the foremost question arises for consideration before the Forum is “whether the OP company is liable to replace the refrigerator with new one and the liner cracks so developed in the refrigerator are covered as per terms and conditions of the Annual Maintenance Contract”. At the outset, it is not disputed that the refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant on 12.7.2013 and it is also not disputed that the Annual Maintenance Contract was made by OPs for a period of one year i.e. from 11.9.2015 to 10.9.2016 after receiving a charges of Rs.933/-. The contention of the complainant is that after purchase of the aforesaid plan, some liner cracks developed in the refrigerator of the complainant and as per this plan, the OPs are liable to replace the refrigerator in question with new one whereas according to terms & conditions of AMC i.e. document Annexure C-6 which is “Happy Living Plan” of the OPs company (whereby the complainant and the authorized signatory of the company bind themselves by putting signatures thereupon) specifically says vide term No.18 as under:-
“Main liner crack, Doors, Bulbs, rubber pads, remote, stabilizers, consumables and any damage to the aesthetical components shall not be covered under this contract”.
So, in view of the above, we are of the firm view that the liner cracks alleged to be developed in the refrigerator are not covered as per terms and conditions of AMC i.e. “Happy Living Plan” of the company and as such the company is not liable to replace the refrigerator in question with new one under the garb of AMC.
Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:
PRESIDENT
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jind.
Member
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.