Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/94/2018

Mr.P.Aravind - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ganapath Electronics, Rep by its Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.SathiaMoorthy

24 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  14.08.2016

                                                               Order pronounced on:  24.01.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 24^th  DAY OF JANUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.94/2018

 

Mr.P.Aravind,

No.2-A, 89, Shakethapuri Apartment,

Manoharan Street,

South West Boag Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1. Ganapath Electronics,

Rep by its Manager,

New No.13, Old No.7,

Ramamoorthy Colony Main Road,

Thiru Vi-Ka Nagar,

Chennai – 600 082.

 

2.LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd.,

Represented by its Regional Manager,

A Wing 3^rd Floor D-3 District Centre,

Saket, New Delhi – 110 017.

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s.M.Sathia Moorthy, N.Panneer       Selvam, K.Kasi Viswanathan, S.Baskar

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                      : T.R.Kumaravel

 

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is the owner of LG Split A/C Machine SI No.212PAXL0077 Model No.LSA5 which was purchased on14.07.2016.  The complainant approached 1^st opposite party   for repair of the A/C and it was assessed by 1^st opposite party for Rs.575/- as charges for repair. The A/C was not working even after its repair. Second time it was attended by the 1^st opposite party vide retail invoice No.01970. The complainant Paid sum of Rs. 5,857/- to 1^st opposite party  for repair work. It was again not working even after service. On 17.10.2016 third time 1^st opposite party attended the machine and the repair charges was paid to an extent of Rs.635/- vide invoice No.1008 dated 17.10.2016.Even after the third time service machine was not working. On  03.05.2017 fourth complaint was made with the opposite party  vide invoice no.1012 and service charges of Rs.575/- was paid.  But even after,  the machine was not working.  Legal notice was sent by the complainant through his counsel to opposite parties. On receipt of the notice, 1^st opposite party  had given an estimation of Rs.5,886/- as service charges for the sixth time but the service was not done and the complainant  decided to file the case.  Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The complainant  purchased LG split A/C on 10.04.2013  but wrongly mentioned the purchase date as 14.07.2016. The 1^st opposite party  had attended the service on 14.07.2016 with the inspection charges of Rs.575/- including tax and found the condenser coil got  repaired and then replaced with a new one with one year warranty. The service charge was Rs.5857/- which includes the gas filling charges of Rs.1725/- and other charges of Rs.575/-.Again 0n 17.10 16  1^st opposite party attended the  repair work  at request of the complainant  and charged Rs.575/- for inspection. The condenser coil was replaced with a new one at  free of cost and the regular maintenance was done and charged Rs.635/- Again there was a repair as evaporator coil was not working and the estimation was given but the complainant  did not agree and wanted to be replaced with free of cost. Since there is no warranty for the same 1^st opposite party  did not accept to do for free of cost. After the receipt of legal notice again the 1^st opposite party  offered for a new estimate with special discount for which the complainant  did not agree. The 2^nd opposite party  is no way connected to the complaint  and is not responsible.  The complaint is to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          Retail invoices dated 14.07.16, 16.07.16,03.05.17,  and  01.07.17 are marked as Ex.A1 to  Ex.A4 and the amounts paid are Rs.575, Rs.585, Rs.635,Rs.575,and Rs.102/-. Legal notice issued by the complainant  dated 08.12.2017 with its acknowledgement is Ex.A5.Estimation given for the sixth time dated 06.02.2018 is Ex.A7. E-Mail sent by the complainant  dated 07.02.18 is Ex.A8. Lawyer  notice to both opposite parties and its reply are Ex.A9 and Ex.A10. On the side of opposite parties  Job sheets dated 10.07.2016, 29.09.2016 are marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. Legal notice and its reply are Ex.B3 and Ex.B4.

            05. The complainant contended that repeated and incessant method of undertaking services one after the other  reveals that 1^st opposite party  had undertaken the services without the required knowledge and also on under trial basis only.  The  opposite party  could not make out the exact problem in the machine but in the habit of  making bill after bill in the name of service. Hence the user is deprived of needed service even after  five times of service it remains in a unserviceable condition and 1^st opposite party  had spoiled the machine. Since 2^nd opposite party had appointed the 1^st opposite party as his authorized agent, he is impleaded as a party. Because of opposite parties unfair trade practice the complainant suffered mental agony,  harassment and inconvenience.  Hence the complaint is filed.

           06. The opposite parties would contend that 1^st opposite party  had done  proper service and free services can be availed only if it is within a warranty period. The complainant’s request to replace the evaporator coil free of cost is meaningless and the 2^nd opposite party  is no way connected to the complaint and the complaint is to be dismissed.

            07. There is no invoice produced to prove that the A/C Machine was purchased in the year 2016. The opposite parties have submitted that the machine was purchased in the year 2013 and it was not denied by the complainant . If the purchase was really in the year 2016 there would have been warranty for  the first service. Admittedly it was out of warranty then it is to be considered as the opposite parties pointed out the purchase date was of the year 2013.  After three years i.e. on 14.07.2016 and 16.07 .2016 there was a retail  invoice for the service done by 1^st opposite party  for condenser coil and also for filling up the gas in Ex.A1 thereby the service request of the complainant  was accepted and the service was done by the 1^st opposite party. As per Complaint three months later third and fourth service was done by 1^st opposite party  on 17.10.2016 and on 03.05.2017 at the request of the complainant  and then also  complainant  alleges the machine was not working. But the 1^st opposite party  denies the allegation.

            08. In the meantime as  1^st opposite party  contended that the Condensor coil  was replaced by the 1^st opposite party   and it was charged as per Ex.A2.  Since it was out of warranty period and for the replaced condenser coil fresh warranty card was given  and  when it  got  repaired  within the warranty period after the replacement of the same  by 1^st opposite party  again had  replaced the condenser coil free of cost on 04.10.2016. As per retail invoice of Ex.A5 capacitor was charged with service charges. Ex.A6 dated 08.12.2016 is the legal notice issued to the opposite parties   with the estimated charges of loss and damage.   1^st opposite party had sent the estimation dated 06.02.2018 for an amount of Rs.5,886/- for the estimated work of repair/replacement.  On 22.02.2018 the complainant had given notice to both the opposite parties claiming damages for the alleged deficiency in service under Ex.A9. Reply notice by opposite parties was in Ex.A10.

             09. The complainant  mainly contends that 1^st opposite party  is inefficient in doing  services which amounted to failure of service  that is why it happened as service after service and the consumer such as  complainant  is put to unwarranted   payment towards  unsuccessful service on four counts and it amounts to deficiency in service  and   due to which the complainant  suffered mental agony and stress.

           10. It is noticed that the 1^st opposite party  had attended service at complainant’s request. Admittedly he had replaced and charged the spare parts. Since the machine is not under warranty he replaced condenser coil for the second time which was within the warranty period.  A/c was purchased in the year 2013 and it is also noted in Ex.B1 and Ex.B2  the machine got repaired in the year 2016  and the repair was done as per  the complainant’s  request. The allegation of inefficiency against 1^st opposite party is not substantiated by the complainant.  It is also argued on the side of the opposite party that at  the  request of complainant  estimation for the services was given to the complainant  which includes  the replacement of evaporator coil and the complainant  wants to be replaced at free of cost but the opposite parties  had given in person  an estimation with  special discount  but the complainant  did not agree for the same. However there is no meaning in finding fault with the opposite parties  since  the machine of year 2013 got repaired every now and then. The same serviced part did not get repaired repeatedly but one or the other spare parts were getting damaged  and the alleged inefficiency in service by opposite parties  is not substantiated and there is no other expert opinion submitted by the complainant  to substantiate their allegation against 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party  had done the service at the request of complainant at all times. Free service and replacement of products can only be done for the products which is within warranty period.  The cost of service need be paid to the service where the product is out of warranty undoubtedly.

                  The following citations are submitted on behalf of the complainant.

1.M/s.Daikin Airconditioning India

VS.

Mandeep Karur

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Union Territory, Chandigarh

 

 

2.Hitachi Home And Life Solutions

VS.

Col.Alok Bhalla

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 

3.Kajari Ghosh

VS.

The Manager Khosla Electronics

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 

In all these cases the service was done within the warranty period but here is the case where the product is out of warranty.  Hence circumstances do vary and under such circumstances the cited cases are not applicable to this case.  Hence this forum  do not find any deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. There is no specific allegation against 2^nd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party  is no way connected to the complaint and point 1 is answered against the complainant.

11. POINT NO.2:

            In view of the findings in point No.1 complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainant is not entitled to any relief against opposite parties.

            In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 24^th  day of January 2020.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.07.2016          Retail Invoice of O.P.No.1

 

Ex.A2 dated 16.07.2016          Retail Invoice of O.P.No.1

 

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Retail Invoice of O.P.No.1

 

Ex.A4 dated 03.05.2017          Retail Invoice of O.P.No.1

 

Ex.A5 dated 01.07.2017          Retail Invoice of O.P.No.1

 

Ex.A6 dated 08.12.2017          Advocate Notice to O.P.No.1 with acknowledgement card

 

Ex.A7 dated 06.02.2018          Sixth time Estimation issued by O.P.No.1

 

Ex.A8 dated 07.02.2018          E-mail Sent by the complainant

 

Ex.A9 dated 22.02.2018          Further Advocate Notice to both opposite parties with postal receipts

 

Ex.A10 dated 07.03.2018        Reply notice given by both opposite parties

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated 10.07.2016                   Job Sheet

 

Ex.B2 dated 29.09.2016                   Job Sheet

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                      Legal Notice

 

Ex.B4 dated 07.03.2018                   Reply Notice                                              

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT