Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/582

M/s Nav Bharat Traders - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurnace Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Iqbal Singh

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:380 dated 09.08.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 13.09.2023.

 

Ravinder Pal Singh aged 44 years son of Shri Avtar Singh, r/o.541-L, Model Town, Ludhiana (M: 9872186945).                                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Ram Kumar Ajay Kumar, B-IX-1496, Gokul Road, Ludhiana-141008 through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.
2.  
2. M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Near Village Jhande, Near Badowal Railway Station, Ludhiana through its Director/Manager/Authorized Person.
3. M/s. LG Electronics, having its Head Office at Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Udyog Extension, Eco Tech-II, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201306 (Ph. 0120-7180100) through its Manager/Authorized person.                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. J.B. Khanna, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

 

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that opposite party No.1 and 2 are the franchisee/dealers of LG products like refrigerator, LED etc. and the complainant purchased refrigerator make LG REF DIOS GC-B217BPJV vide invoice No.R/0086 dated 17.05.2012 for Rs.64,002/- from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 and 2 gave a 10 years warranty on the refrigerator and assured that there will be no chance of any complaint of whatsoever nature at any point of time. On 17.05.2012, the officials of opposite parties visited and installed the refrigerator at the residence of the complainant. The complainant stated that after few months of the date of purchase, the refrigerator started giving problem while cooling and the matter was taken up with opposite party No.1 and 2 many times and the cooling problem was set right by their officials but the problem of cooling did not fully resolve. On 07.06.2019, the complainant lastly lodged complaint regarding mechanical defect in the refrigerator on helpline No.18003159999, on which complaint No.RNP190607081363 was registered and mobile No.9646292836 of Lakhvir Singh was given. On 11.06.2019, said Lakhvir Singh visited the premises of the complainant for repair of refrigerator, who was found to be untrained mechanic and he damaged the refrigerator as it totally stopped the operation. Thereafter, the complainant many times requested opposite party No.1 and 2 to repair the refrigerator or to replace the same with new one or to refund the value of the said refrigerator but they did not listen to his genuine request. The complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.06.2019 upon the opposite parties through Sh. Jagat Bhushan Khanna, Advocate but no reply was received from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed to issue direction to the opposite parties either to repair the refrigerator or to replace the same with new one or to refund the value  of the refrigerator along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and adopted joint written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; lack of cause of action; concealment of facts and the complaint being abuse of process of law etc. The opposite parties stated that the first and only complaint has been lodged on 07.06.2019 regarding no cooling since the purchase of the product. The service engineer visited the premises of complainant and checked the product and found that the drier pipe has been broken from the edge of the body of refrigerator due to which it cannot be repaired. Moreover, the refrigerator was also out of warranty as warranty period of one year has already expired on 16.05.2013. Further as per report of visiting service engineer who found the product in question has become non-repairable due to the physical damage caused to the drier pipe of the refrigerator. The complainant has never alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence in the shape of report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories, in the absence of which the claim cannot be allowed.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. C2 is the copy of invoice dated 17.05.2012, Ex. C3 is the copy of legal notice dated 14.06.2019, Ex. C4 is the copy of reply dated 16.07.2019 to legal notice and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Gulshan Sheel, Branch Service Manager of the opposite parties office at Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of job sheet dated 07.06.2019, Ex. R2 is the copy of warranty card, Ex. R3 is the copy of reply dated 16.07.2018 to legal notice dated 14.06.2019, Ex. R4 is the copy of postal receipt and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                Admittedly, on 17.05.2012, the complainant purchased a refrigerator vide invoice Ex. C2 from opposite party No.1 and according to the complainant, at the time of purchase, a warrantee of 10 years was given to him by opposite party No.1. On 17.05.2022, the refrigerator was installed by the representatives of opposite parties at the residence of the complainant. But within just few months, the complainant reported the malfunctioning with regard to cooling with opposite party No.1 but despite repeated repairs, by the mechanics deputed by opposite party No.1, it remained unresolved. The complainant had been using the product with its limited cooling and finally for the first time after more than 7 years of its purchase, on 07.06.2019, he reported the matter to opposite party No.2 and 3 through their official helpline number. One Service Engineer namely Sanjeev Kumar not Lakhvir Singh as stated by the complainant visited the place of installation of the refrigerator and prepared job sheet Ex. R1. The Service Engineer reported a defect as tempered set and customer had already repaired it from local engineer and the compression set  assembly has been internally broken. The product had become non-repairable due to breaking of the drier pipe from the edge of the refrigerator. The counsel for opposite party No.2 and 3 further drawn the attention of this Commission towards document of warranty Ex. R2 where the warranty period has been specified to be one year for the refrigerator and four year for the compressor from date of its original retail purchase. So it is apparent that the warranty for 10 years given by opposite party No.1 was a company warranty but warranty extended by itself. In order to meet such eventualities, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019have included the definition of “Express Warranty” and in this regard, Section 2(2) reads as under:-

“Express warranty” means any material statement, affirmation of fact, promise or description relating to a product or service warranting that it conforms to such material statement, affirmation, promise or description and includes any sample or model of a product warranting that the whole of such product conforms to such sample or model.”

7.                It is also evident from the record that no manufacturing defect has been reported by the complainant nor any expert to this effect has been examined. So considering the fact and circumstances of the case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and 3.

8.                Since the express warranty was extended by opposite party No.1 and he had been deputing mechanics to rectify the defects in the refrigerator from its inception and poor workmanship and lack of skills on the part of the mechanics so deputed by opposite party No.1 for appears to have made the product non-functional. Had opposite party No.1 truly demonstrated and made the complainant aware of the fact that the  comprehensive warranty of the product is for one year and not for 10 years, then the complainant would have exercised the other options for approaching the company to send trained service engineers to remove the defect. Even otherwise, opposite party No.1 did not forward the complaint to the qualified service engineer or could have sent the product to the service centre of opposite party No.2 and 3. So the act and conduct of opposite party No.1 amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as well. The invoice value of the product is Rs.64,002/- and the complainant had used the product for about 7 years before it became un-repairable and considering these facts, it will be just and appropriate if the complainant is directed to hand over the product to opposite party No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, opposite party No.1 will refund the depreciated value of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of delivery of refrigerator by the complainant along with a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. 

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that complainant is directed to hand over the product to opposite party No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, opposite party No.1 will refund the depreciated value of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of delivery of refrigerator by the complainant. Opposite party No.1 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint against opposite party No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                                (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                                President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.09.2023.

Gobind Ram.