Consumer Complaint No. 98 of 2016
Date of filing: 27.5.2016 Date of disposal: 15.02.2017
Complainant: Smt. Sukla De Sil, W/o. Sri Rabindranath Sil, resident of Vivekananda Pally, Kalna Road, PO., PS. & District: Burdwan, Pin – 713 101.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Apex Service, Authorized Service Centre of LG, Represented by its Manager, having its office at Officers Colony More, G. T. Road, Behind Kali Mandir, PO: Sripally, PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
2. The Director, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., having its office at A-wing (3rd Floor), D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN – 110 017.
3. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur Branch, represented by its Manager, having its office at City Residency Hotel Building, 3rd Floor, Sahid Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 216, West Bengal.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party Nos. 1,2 & 3): Ld. Advocate,Santi Ranjan Hazra
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice as the OPs did not refund her the Microwave oven by repairing the same.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that she purchased a Microwave Oven, manufactured by the OP-2 and 3 from Pragati Electronics in the year 2009. The total consideration amount of the said goods was of Rs.11, 200=00. After taking the consideration amount Pragati Electronics issued an invoice in favour of the Complainant. The Microwave Oven was under the warranty for one year from the date of its purchase. During continuing of use of the said oven it started to create problems from the first week of March, 2012. As such the Complainant as well as her husband tried to make contact with the Ops. After several attempts the Complainant became successful to make contact with the OP-1 and 3 and after several requests the OP-1 and 3 sent their representatives and mechanics for removing the problems. On 14.06.2012 the mechanics of the OPs changed the transformer of the Microwave Oven. After repairing they issued a job sheet and the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1, 347=00 to the OP-1 towards the cost of repairing. After repairing of the same the said persons gave a proposal to the Complainant for starting annual maintenance service and the Complainant after knowing the facilities accepted the proposal. The OPs as such issued AMC in favour of the Complainant and the said AMC was valid for the period from 14.06.2012 to 13.06.2015. But surprisingly the said oven became unserviceable condition again within three days after repairing. As such the Complainant again made contact with the OP-1, but did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant. After several requests and telephonic calls from the end of the Complainant the OP-1 sent its representatives at the house of the Complainant on 24.07.2013, who issued a job sheet in favour of the Complainant and took the oven in their custody for repairing or replacement. It is important that in the job sheet dated 24.07.2013 the OPs mentioned as ‘No Heating’ in respect of the said oven. Since 24.07.2013 the microwave oven is lying in the custody of the OP-1 and neither had she receives the same in repaired condition nor replaced. Moreover the AMC which was valid up to 13.06.2015 has been expired. Since then the Complainant and her husband on several occasions over telephone as well as personally requested the OPs for either returning the microwave oven after repairing or replaced the same, but the OPs did not pay any heed to such requests. Thereafter the Complainant on 02.05.2014 sent a letter to the OP-2 requesting them to take appropriate step in her matter, but the OPs kept themselves silent over the matter. Suddenly in the month of September, 2014 the Complainant received a printed form for claiming refund from the OPs. After going through the said form the Complainant came to know that the OPs wanted to refund a sum of Rs.6, 160=00 to her. The Complainant submitted the said duly filled up form before the OP-1 on 24.09.2014. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of submitting the said form the Complainant requested the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.3, 369=00 more with the said amount towards the cost of the parts and consideration paid by her towards the charge of AMC. But very surprisingly the OPs inspite of receipt of the said filled up form neither paid the settled amount nor paid the amount as requested by the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant sent a letter dated 20.06.2015 to the OP-1 through the District Consumer protection Council, Burdwan and letter on 23.02.2016 to the OP-1, but to no effect. Till filing of this complaint the Ops have neither paid the amount as per the said form nor refund the questioned goods to her and kept themselves silent over the matter. As her grievance had not been redressed by the OPs before coming to this Ld. Forum, hence the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.9, 529=00 to her, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50, 000=00 and litigation cost of Rs.20, 000=00 to her.
The OP-1 has contested the complaint by filing written version contending that as and when the Complainant intimated this OP about the problem and defect in the questioned Microwave Oven, the OP-1 took step for repairing and remove the same on 14.06.2012 and collected a sum of Rs.1, 347=00 towards the cost of the parts as the warranty period for the said item had already been expired. So there is no negligence and laches on the part of the OP-1. Moreover as the cause of action regarding deficiency in service in providing service arose on 14.06.2012, hence the complaint is barred by limitation. The Complainant after being satisfied with the terms and conditions agreed to accept the AMC policy and accordingly on 14.06.2012 the Company issued AMC in favour of the Complainant after receipt of the prescribed charge for Rs.2022 towards the same. The AMC was valid for the period from 14.06.2012 to 13.06.2015 and as per the terms and the conditions the Complainant cannot claim refund of the AMC charges. The Op-1 has denied all the allegations as made out by the Complainant in the petition of complaint. The OP-1 being the large and reputed company in India used to provide prompt and satisfactory services to its customers through their authorized service centre and the OP-1 had never neglected or refused the request of the Complainant towards the repairing of the product. According to the OP-1 the AMC was issued on 14.06.2012 and the product was handed over by the Complainant under the custody of the OPs on 24.07.2013. Therefore as per provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986 the complaint should have been filed within two years from the date of the cause of action. There was no question of repairing of the product after handing over the same to the OP as the Complainant agreed to take refund of the amount from this OP after deducting the depreciation value of the product, in lieu of the return/repairing of the product. The slab of depreciation has been fixed as under-
Period of depreciation (in month) Rate of depreciation
0 to 12 months 0%
13 to 24 months 25%
25 to 36 months 45%
37 to 48 months 65%
49 to 72 months 85%
As the present Complainant was under the validity period of AMC scheme, so as per depreciation policy of the Company the Complainant is entitled to get benefit of one slab lower depreciation. The Complainant had accepted the proposal of depreciation value of the product for Rs.6, 160=00 and the OP had issue a cheque for an amount of Rs.6, 160=00 in favour of the Complainant. But she denied to receive the said cheque amount and further claimed Rs.1, 347=00 which she was paid towards repairing cost and Rs.2, 022=00 which was paid towards AMC charges. Such claim of the Complainant is unreasonable, unjustified, unfair and in violation of the terms and conditions of the AMC. Therefore such unjustified claim cannot be accepted. According to the OP-1 it had never committed any negligence, deficiency in service whatsoever, and thus the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for and hence prayer is made by the OP-1 for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Though the petition of complaint have been contested by the OP-2 & 3 By filing conjoint written version, but the case and facts stated therein are identical and similar with the contentions as made out by the OP-1 in its written version. Therefore we are not inclined the same further. According to the OP-2 & 3 this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents and papers in support of her contention. The OP-2 & 3 has adduced their evidence jointly.
We have carefully perused the record; documents submitted by the contesting parties and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties at length. We have noticed that there are some admitted fact in the case in hand i.e. the Complainant purchased a Microwave Oven, manufactured by the OP-2 & 3 from Pragati Electronics in the year 2009, the total consideration amount of the said goods was of Rs.11,200=00, after taking the consideration amount Pragati Electronics issued an invoice in favour of the Complainant, the Microwave Oven was under the warranty for one year from the date of its purchase, problem cropped up for the first time in the first week of March, 2012, upon receipt information from the Complainant the OP-1 & 3 sent their representatives and mechanics for removing the problems, on 14.06.2012 the mechanics of the OPs changed the transformer of the Microwave Oven against payment of Rs.1,347=00 towards the cost of repairing, after repairing of the same the said persons gave a proposal to the Complainant for starting annual maintenance service and the Complainant after knowing the facilities accepted the proposal, The OPs issued AMC in favour of the Complainant, the said AMC was valid for the period from 14.06.2012 to 13.06.2015, the said oven became defective again within three days after its repairing, as per request of the Complainant the OP-1 sent its representatives at the house of the Complainant on 24.07.2013, who issued a job sheet in favour of the Complainant and took the oven in their custody, in the job sheet dated 24.07.2013 the OPs mentioned as ‘No Heating’ in respect of the said oven, since 24.07.2013 the microwave oven is lying in the custody of the OP-1. The allegation of the Complainant is that the OPs have failed to take any step either to return the same by repairing nor replaced. It is the case of the Complainant that in the month of September, 2014 the Complainant received a printed form for claiming refund from the OPs and after going through the said form the Complainant came to know that the OPs wanted to refund a sum of Rs.6, 160=00 to her. The Complainant submitted the said duly filled up form before the OP-1 on 24.09.2014 and at the time of submitting the same the Complainant requested the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.3, 369=00 more with the said amount towards the cost of the parts and consideration paid by her towards the charge of AMC, but the OPs inspite of receipt of the said filled up form neither paid the settled amount nor paid the amount as requested by her. Hence by filing this complaint the complainant has prayed for certain reliefs.
The case of the OPs is that as and when the Complainant intimated the OPs about the problem and defect in the questioned Microwave Oven, the OPs took step for repairing and remove the same on 14.06.2012 received a sum of Rs.1, 347=00 towards the cost of the parts as the warranty period for the said item had already been expired. So there is no negligence and laches on the part of the OP-1. The Complainant after being satisfied with the terms and conditions agreed to accept the AMC policy and accordingly on 14.06.2012 the Company issued AMC in favour of the Complainant after receipt of the prescribed charge for Rs.2, 022=00 towards the same, which was valid for the period from 14.06.2012 to 13.06.2015 and as per the terms and the conditions the Complainant cannot claim refund of the AMC charges. There was no question of repairing of the product after handing over the same to the OP as the Complainant agreed to take refund of the amount from this OP after deducting the depreciation value of the product, in lieu of the return/repairing of the product. The OPs have provided the slab of depreciation. The Complainant had accepted the proposal of depreciation value of the product for Rs.6, 160=00and the OP had issue a cheque for an amount of Rs.6, 160=00 in favour of the Complainant. But she denied to receive the said cheque amount and further claimed Rs.1, 347=00 which she was paid towards repairing cost and Rs.2, 022=00 which was paid towards AMC charges. According to the OPs such claim of the Complainant is unreasonable, unjustified, unfair and in violation of the terms and conditions of the AMC and thus the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for and prayer is made by the OPs for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
From the documents no-5 it is evident that on 02.05.2014 the Complainant wrote a letter to the OP-3 stating that she is eager to get the cost of the product after deduction of the depreciation amount as per the norms of the company and if the Company will be agreed to return the cost of the cost transformer and the AMC charge paid by her, then she will be more benefitted. On 24.09.2014 (document no-6) as submitted by the Complainant from where it is evident that the said letter was also written by her to the OP-3 whereby request was made by her to return the depreciated amount of the questioned product to her as per the company policy. In the said letter the Complainant had provided her bank account number, banker’s name and the name on which the cheque will be issued. It was further mentioned by her in the said letter the tentative refund amount of Rs.6, 160=00. It is true that the OPs are agreed to give the aforementioned amount of Rs.6, 160=00 to the Complainant towards depreciated value of the product, but as the Complainant subsequently claimed further amount as paid by her towards the cost of the transformer and the AMC charge from the OPs, the OPs became reluctant to make payment of the said amount along with the subsequent claim. In this respect we are to say as the complainant agreed to accept the depreciated amount of the product for Rs.6, 160=00 by issuing letter upon the OP-3, hence the subsequent claim raised by the Complainant became estoppels to claim further amount. As the claim of the Complainant has no basis at all, in our view the Complainant is not entitled to get more relief as sought for by filing this complaint.
During argument the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has attracted our notice to the term and condition no-12 of the ‘Happy Living Plan’ (AMC), wherein it is written that ‘the equipment brought to the service centre will remain there at customer risk and the company will not be responsible for any damages caused due to the factors beyond its control’. In our view such term and condition as incorporated by the Company is arbitrary and illegal because when the equipment brought to the service centre the same should be remained there at company’s risk and company will be responsible for any damages to it, customer cannot be held liable and there should not be any risk of the customer. Henceforth, the OPs should be vigilant about such terms and condition.
As the OPs have agreed to pay her the depreciated amount of the questioned goods to the tune of Rs.6, 160=00, hence the OPs are directed to pay the same to her. As the Complainant did not receive the amount as agreed by her, though the OPs were ready to pay the same, hence in opinion the Complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation and litigation cost as prayed for.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed in part without any cost. The OPs are directed either jointly or severally to pay the amount of Rs.6,160=00 to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the said amount shall carry interest @8% p.a. for the default period. The complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
