DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 86/2015
Date of Institution : 07.05.2015
Date of Decision : 24.08.2015
Ranju Bala wife of Sh. Jiwan Puri resident of House No. B-V/145, Janda Wala Road, Near Ramgarhia Gurudwara Street No. 3, Barnala Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
B.B. Electronics, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Barnala, through its Incharge/Prop./Partner/Authorized Signatory.
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., having its Head Office at Plot No. 51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Noida- 201310 through its Incharge.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Roshan Lal in person for the opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Amar Singh counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Ranju Bala has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against the B.B Electronics and LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as the opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Refrigerator from the opposite party No. 1 of LG Brand manufactured by the opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 13,900/- vide invoice No. 7828 dated 8.5.2014. In the fourth week of December 2014 at the time of cleaning the said Refrigerator, the complainant noticed the dents on both right and left side of the inner body of the Refrigerator below the glass trays and she was shocked that the said Refrigerator is having manufacturing defects. Then she approached the opposite party No. 1 and told about the defects. However, the opposite party No. 1 refused to attend the complainant and also told that the complainant should complaint before the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint on the Toll free No. 1800-180-9999 of the opposite party No. 2 on 28.12.2014, which was duly received by them and the complainant was assured that her grievance will be redressed at the earliest. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 deputed one Tinka bearing Mobile No. 75894-01062 to check the said Refrigerator, who in the first month of January 2015 checked the said Refrigerator and after checking the same told the complainant that the said Refrigerator is having inherit manufacturing defect and the same is to be replaced with a new one. Moreover, the said Tinka also assured the complainant that the Refrigerator will be replaced with a new one within one month and the necessary information will be given to the opposite party No. 1 as and when the information for replacement be granted by the opposite party No. 2. The said person also asked the complainant that he had prepared the necessary documents and believing upon the said person, the complainant signed some document. But the said person did not deliver any document to the complainant. However, the complainant arranged the photographs of the dents of the said Refrigerator and the same are annexed with the complaint.
3. However, no information was received by the opposite parties even waiting for one month and thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 in the second week of February 2015 and asked to replace the Refrigerator as assured by the authorized person of opposite party No. 2. But the opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant that he had not received any information from the opposite party No. 2. The complainant made repeated requests to redress her grievance. The opposite parties lingered on the matter by one pretext or the other and ultimately they refused to replace the Refrigerator. Thus, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Act. Therefore, the present complaint is filed to seek the following reliefs:-
To replace the said Refrigerator with a new one.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite part No.1 appeared and filed separate written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, jurisdiction, locus-standi and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant inspected number of Refrigerators of LG Brand and after inspection from outer and inner, selected one Refrigerator. Tthe opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that the answering opposite party is the only sale point of the opposite party No. 2 and issued a bill/invoice No. 7828 dated 8.5.2014. Moreover, at the time of issuance of bill all the instructions printed on th bill was read over to the complainant and accepted correct by the complainant. They have denied that they sold the Refrigerator with manufacturing defect. They have also denied that there is any manufacturing defect. Moreover, the Refrigerator was purchased after due verification, inspection and satisfaction. Moreover, all the responsibility of guarantee or warranty of any defect is with the opposite party No. 2 and no cause of action has arisen against the opposite party No. 1. They have denied other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 2 filed separate written version stating therein that complainant purchased the Refrigerator on 8.5.2014 and paid Rs. 13,900/-. However, the complainant thoroughly checked the Refrigerator before purchasing the same. Moreover, plea of the complainant that the Refrigerator having dents on both right and left side of the inner body cannot be believed as the same were reported after more than eight months. Infact the inner side of the Refrigerator must have been damaged due to mishandling by the complainant/her family members. They have further denied that the person namely Tinka is an employee of the company, therefore factum of checking the Refrigerator by Tinka in January 2015 is wrong. Infact one Bikar Singh was deputed to check the Refrigerator on 29.12.2014 and 31.12.2014 by the opposite party No. 2, who made a remarks on the job sheet “Main Liner Crack, Set beyond replacement” and on that basis claim of the complainant for replacement was declined as the same was not covered under the instructions of the opposite party No. 2. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. In order to prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 8.5.2014 Ex.C-2, copy of Reference Guide Ex.C-3, photographs Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7, affidavit of Jagtar Singh Kanda Ex.C-8, expert report Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
7. In order to rebut the case of complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Roshan Lal Ex.O.P1/1, warranty card Ex.O.P1/2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Bikar Singh Ex.O.P2/1, affidavit of Rajiv Sharma Ex.O.P2/2, copy of job sheet Ex.O.P2/3, copy of photograph Ex.O.P2/4 (objected to), copy of code Ex.O.P2/5, copy of photograph Ex.O.P2/6 (objected to) and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through the evidence tendered by both the parties.
9. In order to prove her case the complainant in her affidavit Ex.C-1 has reiterated her stand as mentioned in the complaint. She specifically stated that she purchased the Refrigerator in question vide invoice No. 7828 dated 8.5.2014 for Rs. 13,900/-. In the fourth week of December 2014 when she was cleaning the said Refrigerator she noticed dents on both right and left side of the inner body of the Refrigerator below the glass trays. She further stated that she made a complaint to the opposite parties, who deputed the person namely Tinka and in the month January 2015 the said Tinka checked the Refrigerator and found that the said Refrigerator is having inherit manufacturing defect and he assured to be replaced with a new one. She also placed on record the photographs of the dents Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7. Apart from her own affidavit she also placed on record an affidavit of Jagtar Singh Kanda Ex.C-8, who is an expert. In his affidavit Jagtar Singh Kanda has stated that he has experienced of 15 years in the Air Conditioner repair and all types of electric equipments. He further stated that he personally checked the fridge in question on 17.4.2015 in the house of complainant and found that there are some cracks in the internal body and after examining the same he found that it is a manufacturing defect and it cannot be caused normally in any manner. He has further placed his detailed report Ex.C-9, wherein he has specifically mentioned that the Refrigerator in question is having manufacturing defect.
10. To rebut the evidence of complainant the opposite parties have placed on record an affidavit of Bikar Singh Ex.O.P2/1, who has stated that he has been working with the opposite party No. 2 as Refrigerator Mechanic for the last six years and he has attended all the complaints of Barnala and he also attended the complaint of complainant on 29.12.2014 and admitted that there were cracks in the inner body of the Fridge, but he stated that these have been the result of mishandling and he also denied that it is manufacturing defect. Apart from the affidavit of Bikar Singh it is also relevant to refer Job Sheet Ex.O.P2/3. Perusal of the same shows that the said Refrigerator was checked by Bikar Singh on 29.12.2014 again on 31.12.2014 and his report in the column of Technical Remarks is as:-
“Main Liner Crack Damage Refrigerator Set Beyond Replacement”.
However, it was contented by the opposite parties that the above said damage was due to the mishandling by the complainant/her family members and therefore the complaint is not covered under Warranty.
11. It is also relevant to refer the Warranty Card Ex.O.P1/2. The opening Para of Page 10 reads as:-
“The LG Refrigerator comes with 1+4 years warranty from the date of purchase, that comprises of a 1 year warranty on all Parts (except Light Bulb, Consumables, Loose Plastic Parts, Glass) in the first year and there after a 4 years Additional Warranty on the compressor, from the date of purchase of the product, provided always that the warranty card bears the rubber stamp, date and signature of our Authorized Dealer”.
Since the complainant has approached the opposite parties within one year of its purchase, therefore the Refrigerator is covered under the warranty period. The perusal of evidence of both the parties clearly shows that there is a defect in the Refrigerator, which is beyond repairable. Even the evidence produced by the complainant shows that there is manufacturing defect. No doubt, the opposite parties have denied any manufacturing defect, but in report produced by their expert Bikar Singh has clearly mentioned that it is beyond repairable. Once it is established that the Refrigerator in question is beyond repairable then the only solution is its replacement or refund of the price of the Refrigerator.
12. Now the next question arises whether the defects so existing in the Refrigerator are the result of mishandling by the complainant. Except the bald statement of opposite parties that the Refrigerator was damaged due to mishandling by the complainant, there is no evidence to explain that how the dents/inside liner cracks could be the result of mishandling. The opposite parties by producing some report could explain this position. Moreover, the report Ex.C-9, who is an independent Mechanic checked the Refrigerator has clearly stated that it is a case of manufacturing defect.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is proved beyond doubt that the Refrigerator in question is beyond repairable and the opposite parties failed to adduce evidence to prove that it is a case of mishandling by the complainant. It is also not disputed that the Refrigerator in question is under warranty period. Therefore, the present complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to replace the Refrigerator in question with a new one or to refund the price of the Refrigerator. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order of ours shall be complied within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
24th Day of August, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member.
