BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR.
Complaint No. 366 of 2015
Date of institution: 15.10.2015
Date of decision: 21.12.2016.
Mohan Lal, age about 25 years, son of Shri Roshan Lal, resident of village Madho Bans, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, Mobile No.9050317348
…Complainant.
Versus
- Kamboj Electronics Near SBI ATM, Bus Stand, Radaur, Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor.
- LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: A wing (3rd Floor) D-3, District Center, Saket, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
...Respondents
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.
SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.
Present: Shri Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for complainant
Shri Devinder Kumar, Advocate for OP No.1
Shri Sumit Gupta, Advocate for OP No.2
ORDER
1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
2. Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one LG Fridge 185 Ltr. (1950MGE4) and LG Washing Machine (7855) from the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) who is authorized dealer of OP No.2 manufacturer against invoice No.685 dated 07.11.2014 for a total sum of Rs.22,700/-. At the time of purchase, the OP No.1 had assured guarantee and warranty of removal of manufacturing defect and replacement of the fridge and washing machine within warranty period. After 6 months of the purchase, the washing machine started giving problem in functioning. Apart from this, in the fridge also, the door rack got cracked and broken and water bottles and other items started falling. On this, the OP No.1 was informed and the complainant lodged a complaint, on which, technical person/engineer came and he changed one of the motors of the washing machine and regarding broken door rack/shelf of the fridge, he told that after consulting from authorized signatory of the OP No.2 would do the needful. Thereafter, the washing machine worked only for a very short period and started giving the same problem. When the OP No.1 was approached by the complainant, the OP No.1 refused to cooperate with the complainant. On this, the complainant lodged a complaint No. RNA 150728078552 dated 28.07.2015 on toll free number but no response came. Thereafter, on 30.07.2015, the complainant again registered a complaint No.150750067496 on toll free Number of the OP No.2 but all in vain. The washing machine is not working at all and door rack/shelf due to inferior quality of material has been broken during warranty period, requires to be replaced by the OPs. When all the efforts of the complainant failed, he sent a legal notice to the OPs on 18.08.2015 which was replied by the OP No.1 with evasive reply dated 19.08.2015 while the OP No.2 has failed to reply the same. It has, thus, been prayed that OPs be directed to replace both the washing machine and fridge which are within warranty period or to make refund of the sale price along with compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement separately OP No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant is neither legally maintainable nor tenable in the eye of law. The OP No.1 is just a dealer of OP No.2 manufacturing company and guarantee and warranty is concerned only with the OP No.2; there is no locus standi to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 and on merit it has been admitted that complainant purchased fridge and washing machine of LG make from the OP No.1 who is dealer of OP No.2. The responsibility of guarantee and warranty is with OP No.2 and not with the answering OP. However, it has been submitted that after receipt of the Legal Notice and having come to know the grievances of the complainant, OP No.1 being dealer had also promptly and diligently lodged a complaint No.RNA-150819066539 on 19.08.2015 with the manufacturing company i.e. OP No.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.
4. OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objection such as complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion that the refrigerator and the washing machine are not working properly; complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; complainant has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; the OP No.2 i.e. LG Electronics is a renowned company in Electronic products and commodities and is manufacturing Electronic products for the past several years and on merit it has been stated that all the complaint so lodged by the complainant had been duly attended and the complainant has put forward a concocted story in order to get his perfectly working washing machine and refrigerator replaced with new one. The washing machine and the refrigerator in question had been checked lastly on dated 11.09.2015 vide complaint No.150911037725 after the issuance of the legal notice by the complainant. It has been further mentioned that complainant had lodged the above said complaint for the refrigerator only, but when the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant, he asked the service engineer to check the washing machine also. The service engineer checked the washing machine and the same was found to be in perfect working condition. Whereas the bottle rack/shelf of the refrigerator was found broken. The service engineer told the complainant that he is ready to give the replacement of the broken rack/shelf but the complainant adamantly asserted on the replacement of the whole refrigerator. But, the service engineer refused for the replacement of the whole refrigerator as the same was in perfect working condition. It has been further mentioned that legal notice issued by the complaint was duly replied by the OP No.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complainant being there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
5. In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as CW/A, photocopy of bill bearing No.685 dated 07.11.2014 as Annexure C1; copy of legal notice as Annexure C2; postal receipt as Annexure C3, photocopy of acknowledgments as Annexure C4 to C6 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, OP No.1 failed to adduced any evidence hence his evidence was closed by Court order vide order dated 09.08.2016.
7. Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jyoti Prasad Chaturvedi, authorized signatory M/s LG Electronics as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
8. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.
9. It is not disputed that that complainant purchased one LG Fridge 185 Ltr. (1950MGE4) one LG Washing Machine (7855) from the OP No.1 manufactured by the OP No.2 vide bill No.685 dated 07.11.2014 for a total sum of Rs.22,700/-, which is also duly evident from the photocopy of bill (Annexure C1). The only grievances of the complainant is that just after 6 months of the purchase of the washing machine, it started giving problem in functioning. Apart from this, in the fridge also, the door rack got cracked and broken and water bottles with other items started falling, on this the complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.RNA-150728078552 dated 28.07.2015 and after that on 30.07.2015 on toll free number of OP No.2, but the OP No.2 reused to replace the refrigerator as well as washing machine in question of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the Para No.3 of the written statement in which OP No.2 has admitted that on visiting the house of the complainant; the service engineer checked the washing machine as well as fridge and found that bottle rack/shelf of the refrigerator was broken. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that engineer of the OP No.2 himself admitted that he is ready to give the replacement of broken rack/shelf of the fridge in question and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 argued at length that a false and manipulated complaint has been filed by the complainant just to harass, humiliate and extract the money from the OP No.2, whereas no truth is attached with the fact mentioned in the complaint. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that after receiving the legal notice and complaint bearing No. RNA-150728078552, the service engineer of the OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and found that washing machine was working properly, however, rack/shelf of the fridge in the question was found broken. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that as a gesture of goodwill, the service engineer of the OP No.2 offered for replacement of the shelf/rack of the refrigerator in question but the complainant totally remained adamant to get the replacement of both the products, which was not possible and lastly argued that as the complainant has not placed on file any expert/mechanic report to prove his version, hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
11. After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2. It is admitted case of OP No.2 that rack/shelf of the fridge in question was found broken but in the reply it is nowhere mentioned that a rack/shelf of the fridge in question was broken due to the negligence of the complainant or due to manufacturing defect of the fridge. Although the complainant has not placed on file any mechanic /expert report to prove his version, even then when the service Engineer OP No.2 has himself admitted that rack of the refrigerator in question was broken. We have no option except to partly allow the complaint of the complainant. It is also not the case of the OPs that the refrigerator in question was not in warranty period. Both the parties have not placed on file any warranty card to prove their case. As the complainant has totally failed to place on file any expert/mechanic report that washing machine in question was not working properly, hence, the grievances qua the washing machine of the complainant is not tenable.
12. Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we be partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP No.2 to replace the rack of the refrigerator in question free of cost and put the refrigerator as well as washing machine in proper working condition free of cost, if there is any defect. Further, the OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses. Complainant qua OP No.1 is hereby dismissed. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court: 21.12.2016.
(S.C.SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
DCDRF Yamuna Nagar
