Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/183/2015

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Capt. Tejinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Aditya Grover & Arjun Grover, Adv.

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	183 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	06.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	09.09.2015

 

1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A Wing (3rd Floor), D-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi, through its Regional Service Manager, Sh.Naresh Kumar son of Sh.Ram Lal.
2. M/s Satlej Enterprises, SCO No.84, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Parshotam Singh.

 

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Capt. Tejinder Singh, House No.19, Sector 22, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent/Complainant

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Sh.Aditya Grover, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh.Naginder Singh Vashist, Advocate for the respondent          

 

PER MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.05.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and also having indulged into unfair trade practice by not maintaining sufficient spares in their inventory.  Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

[a] The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

[b] The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-’’.

2.       Consumer complaint bearing No.584 of 2014 was filed by the complainant, stating therein that he purchased one LED TV and one split AC, on 11.11.2011 and 23.11.2011 respectively, from the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that since the said split AC was wrongly installed by the technicians of the Opposite Parties, at the premises of the complainant, leakage of water took place therefrom, as a result whereof, the LED TV already installed on the same wall, below the same (split AC), stopped working and on inspection, by their (Opposite Parties) engineers, it was found that the same (LED TV) suffered a major defect. It was further stated that, on the other hand, when a request was made to repair the said LED TV, the Opposite Parties refused to do so, for want of spare parts thereof, as a result whereof, after waiting for a sufficient time, left with no alternative, the complainant had to purchase a new LED TV, on making payment of Rs.49,500/-. It was further stated that, as such, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice, firstly on the ground that they had wrongly installed the said split AC and secondly, they failed to repair the said LED TV, for want of spare parts, just within about three years of sale thereof, which became defective, on account of leakage of water, from the said split AC.
3.       On the other hand, the Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the fact, with regard to sale of the said LED TV and split AC, to the complainant. It was stated that, no doubt, the said LED TV was installed by the technicians of the Opposite Parties, at the premises of the complainant, but, on the other hand, the split AC in question, which was purchased thereafter, was got installed by the complainant, at his own, from outside, and, as such, on account of wrong installation thereof, leakage of water took place therefrom. It was further stated that, the other reasons of leakage of water from the split AC, in question, was that the complainant failed to get the required serviced done, on regular basis, as per the terms and conditions contained in the manual. However, it was admitted that that complainant lodged a complaint, with regard to defect in the LED TV in question, on inspection whereof, its panel was found defective, as the water had entered into the same, on account of leakage from the said split AC, installed over the same, on the same wall, which was to be repaired, on payment of Rs.15,000/-, to which complainant flatly refused.  It was further stated that, in the cases, where the spare parts of the product(s) were not available or the Company had stopped manufacturing, it had a depreciation policy, for genuine failure thereof (parts), by making refund after assessing depreciation value, even if the unit was out of warranty, but the same was not applicable to the present case, as the LED TV, in question, was found to be defective, on account of water logging, and such negligence was attributable to the complainant only, for the reasons referred to above. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4.       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5.       After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
6.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
7.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
8.       The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the split AC, in question, which was purchased by the respondent/complainant, from the appellants/Opposite Parties was installed by their technicians or the same was got installed by him (complainant), at his own, from outside i.e. from an unauthorized party, as a result whereof leakage occurred in the same, and the water entered into the LED TV, which had been installed just below it (split AC). It may be stated here, that it has been clearly stated by the complainant, in his complaint, duly supported by his affidavit, by way of evidence that the said split AC was installed by the technicians of the appellants/Opposite Parties. No doubt, in the written version filed by the Opposite Parties, in the District Forum, as also during the arguments, before this Commission, it was contended by them, that the said split AC was not installed by their technicians, but on the other hand, the same was got installed by the respondent/complainant, at his own, from outside. The stand taken by the appellants/Opposite Parties, in this regard, does not merit acceptance. In our considered opinion, it was required of the Opposite Parties, to prove this stand, by placing on record, some cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of record, maintained by them, with regard to installation of the ACs, including other electronic gadgets sold by them, to various customers. The Opposite Parties could have very well produced the list alongwith the addresses of the customers, where they had installed the ACs, including other electronic gadgets sold to them (customers), during the period in dispute, and could have proved by showing the absence of the name of the complainant therein, regarding non-installation of the split AC, in question, at his premises, to substantiate their stand but they failed to do so. As such, an adverse inference could very well be drawn that had the list referred to above, been produced by the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, or this Commission, the same would have gone against their interest. Otherwise also, when the complainant had got the said LED TV, admittedly installed from the technicians of the appellants/Opposite Parties, then by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the split AC, which was also purchased by him, from them, after few days, would be got installed by him, at his own, from outside. It is, therefore, held that both the electronic gadgets, referred to above, which were purchased by the respondent/complainant, were installed by technicians of the appellants/Opposite Parties, at his premises. Thus, it was required of technicians of the appellants/Opposite Parties, to install the said split AC, at an appropriate place, to avoid any loss/damage to any other gadget(s) fitted/installed adjoining to the same, in case, there was any leakage of water therefrom; may be on account of any reason. There was, thus, gross negligence on the part of the technicians of the Opposite Parties, in this regard, and, as such, any loss occurred out of the same (negligence), could not be attributed to the respondent/complainant. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.
9.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellants/Opposite Parties were in possession of the necessary spare parts of the said LED TV, in question, to repair the same, which was admittedly got defective, on account of water entering therein, after leakage took place from the said split AC, which was wrongly installed by them, on the same wall or not. It may be stated here, that, on the one hand, the appellants/Opposite Parties contended that they informed the respondent/complainant that the said LED TV could be repaired on chargeable basis i.e. on payment of Rs.15,000/-, yet, at the same time, in para No.8 of their reply on merits, it has been candidly stated by them that, in cases, where the spare parts of the products are not available or the Opposite Parties stopped manufacturing the same, they refund the amount thereof, after assessing depreciation value, even if the unit was out of warranty. Thus, this statement of the appellants/Opposite Parties itself, goes to establish that they were not in possession of the necessary spare part(s), which were/was required to make the said LED TV functional, as they had stopped manufacturing the same, as a result whereof, after waiting for a sufficient time, the respondent/complainant, left with no alternative, had to buy a new LED TV, as stated above.  On this ground too, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.
10.       No doubt, it was submitted by the appellants/Opposite Parties, that since the LED TV, in question, was out of warranty, as such, they were not  liable to repair the same free-of-cost, or refund the price of the defective part(s) thereof, after assessing the depreciation value, in the manner, referred to above.  It may be stated here that it is not the case of the appellants/Opposite Parties that the respondent/ complainant had approached them, simply with a complaint of defects in the said LED TV, after the expiry of warranty period. On the other hand, it is a case, wherein, defects in the said LED TV occurred, only on account of gross negligence aforesaid, of the technicians of the appellants/Opposite Parties and despite that, when the respondent/complainant was ready to  get the same (LED TV) repaired on chargeable basis, they failed to do so, on account non-availability of the required spare parts. It may be stated here the Opposite Parties were duty bound to provide the after sales service to the respondent/complainant and were under obligation to remove the defects in the same, irrespective of the fact, that the same was out of warranty period, on chargeable basis. No doubt, the Opposite Parties also placed reliance on Annexure P-4 (colly.) i.e. the Service Information Bulletin at pages 51 to 53 of the appeal file, with regard to payment of standard service charges to be paid by the customers, after the warranty period of the product/unit is expired. It may be stated here that perusal of Annexure P-4 (colly.) clearly reveals that the same came into force w.e.f. 21.08.2014 and, as such, in no way, applicable to present case, as the electronic gadgets, in dispute, were purchased by the respondent/ complainant from appellants/Opposite Parties, in the year 2011. The submission of the appellants/Opposite Parties, in this regard, thus, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.     
11.       In view of the above, it is held that the District Forum was right, in holding that the Opposite Parties, were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, in directing the Opposite Parties/appellants, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant/ respondent, as consolidated amount of compensation, for causing mental agony and harassment to him, as also on account of deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice,  and cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
12.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
13.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

09.09.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg