Andhra Pradesh

Vizianagaram

CC/23/2013

S EESWARA RAO - Complainant(s)

Versus

L G ELECTRONICS SERVICE CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

S NAGESWARA RAO

19 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM- VIZIANAGARAM
(UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/23/2013
 
1. S EESWARA RAO
VZM
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. L G ELECTRONICS SERVICE CENTRE
3 LAMP JUNCTION,VZM
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T SRIRAMA MURTHY M.A.,L.L.B. PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. G APPALA NAIDU M.COM.,MBA,PGDCS,B.L.,PGDMVO MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:S NAGESWARA RAO, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: P DHANUNJAYA RAO, Advocate
ORDER

This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri S.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri  P.Dhanunjaya Rao, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

 

O R D E R

GANTA APPALA NAIDU, MEMBER

 

          This complaint is filed Under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking reliefs to direct the OP to rectify the defect of the LG washing machine, to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards compensation for mental agony and physical hardship caused due to the deficiency of service on the part of OP, to award costs of the complaint and to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice on the following averments:-

          The complainant in the month of February 2012 handed over LG company washing machine to the OP for effecting repairs which was attended to by the OP by collecting Rs.1,630/-(Rupees One Thousand and Six Hundred Thirty Only) from the complainant vide bill no.1467 dated 14.02.2012 but even after repair the said washing machine it has not been properly working.  Again the complainant handed over the said washing machine to the OP as per their advise in the month of July 2012 and the OP again collected a sum of Rs.3,800/- from the complainant under the bill no-00335 dated 28.07.2012 and returned the washing machine to the complainant but even then the said machine is not working and when the complainant contacted the OP and informed the problem, the OP did not care to rectify the defect and the problem.  The complainant further submits that since the said washing machine has not been working properly thereby causing much inconvenience, hardship and loss besides suffering to the complainant compelling him to incurred huge amount for giving his class to dhobis for high rates.  Therefore the OP is liable to pay damages and compensation to the complainant besides repairing the said washing machine properly since there is deficiency in service on the part of OP the complainant also got issued a registered Lawyer’s notice dated 25.08.2012 demanding the OP to rectify the defects in the washing machine immediately and to pay damages for deficiency in service but the OP having received and acknowledged the said notice on 27.08.2012 neither rectify the defects in the washing machine nor paid any damage or replied to the said notice but kept quite hence this complaint.

          Counter filed by the OP denying the allegations leveled in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted therein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  It is also stated by the OP that the complainant invented all the baseless and untenable allegations only for the purpose of filing the complaint seeking, compensation and damages which are unwarranted the OP further submits that he is only authorized, service center of LG Electronics India Limited.  When the complainant the washing machine for repair in the month of February, 2012 it is found that there is defect in PCB and was repaired after conducting test in the presents of complainant who took delivery of the said machine.  Later in the month of July, 2012 when the complainant brought the said washing machine for repair it was the spin not functioning because of clutch assembling of the spoiled due to heavy load used and the same was rectified the OP explained all the problems and defects to the complainant and got it repaired by replacing the clutch assembly with new motor of span which was also rectified and the complainant took delivery on 28.07.2012.  Later the complainant telephone to the OP and informed the said washing machine is not working then the OP asked him to bring the same to the service center for rectification of the defect but the complainant did not do so but he gave notice through his dated 25.08.2012 lawyer.  After receiving the same the OP telephone to the complainant asking him to bring the washing machine for repair on 31.08.2012 and on the same day the problem was rectified and delivered to the house of the complainant through kalasi of OP and by that time the complainant did not hand over the job sheet by saying that it was misplaced and people his words the OP ignored the same.  Therefore the complainant filed this complaint only to harass the OP with a view to grab money wrongfully by causing wrongful loss, which shows clearly the attitude of the complainant not only to harass the OP but also to befame him in the society.  Therefore the OP place to dismiss the complaint since there is no deficiency or dereliction in duty on the part of OP. 

          Exhibits A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the complainant and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the Opposite Party.

          Exhibit A1 is the bill no-1467 dated 14.02.2012 for Rs.1,630/- issued by OP in favour of the complainant.  Exhibit A2 is the bill no-00335 dated 28.07.2012 for Rs.3,800/- issued by OP in favour of the complainant.  Exhibit A3 is the job sheet no-1122 dated 14.07.2012.  Exhibit A4 is the visiting card of OP.  Exhibit A5 is the office copy of registered lawyer’s notice dated 25.08.2012.  Exhibit A6 is the acknowledgement from the OP.

          Heard arguments.  Posted for orders.  The orders are as follows:-

          The counsel for both the parties advanced arguments reiterating what they have stated in the complaint, counter, evidence affidavit and brief written arguments respectively.

          The main contention of the complainant is that even though he handed over LG company washing machine to the OP (authorized service center of LG Electronics India Private Ltd microtech electronic services) for repair the OP repaired the same by connecting Rs.1,630/- from him and even then the said washing machine has not been properly working forseen him to handover the same to the OP second time for repairs by putting an amounts of Rs.3,800/- to the OP and even then the said machine is not working and when contacted the OP by informing the problem, the OP did not care to rectify the defect and problem as a result the complainant is compelled to incur huge amounts for giving his clothes to dhobis at high rates besides he was subjected to lot of inconvenience, hardship and mental agony since there is deficiency in service and dereliction in duty on the part of OP.  Hence he is entitled to get the said washing machine rectified properly in addition to compensation and costs from the OP.  The complainant submitted a citation (2009 CJ 118(TN), AP No-596 of 2003 decided on 09.09.2008, Hyundai motors India Ltd VS Usha Rani Pardhasaradhi and another consumer protection act,1986 and section-2 (1) (F) – Motor Car –manufacturing defect – vehicle sent to works of nearly on 20 occasions – no material to repudiate said claim- complainant has gone to the extent of selling a physical as she was not in a position to bear inconvenience she has undergone with frequent repairs – there is deficiency in service  on the part of 2nd OP – new infirmity in order – district forum allowing compensation.

          Another citation submitted by the complainant (2009 CJ 21 (DEL), appeal No-126 of 2008 decided on 09.07.2008, Rajiv Gulati Vs Tata Engineering and the Locomotive Company Ltd and others, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections-2(1) Again (F) and 14(1) (D) – vehicles – manufacturing defect – new vehicle purchased defect in power steering – defect issued to be persisting despite several check ups and service – inherent defect as a result of poor workmanship of manufactures causing loss and damage to complainant – complainant constrain to sell the vehicle as defect could not be cured – a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) besides Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards cost of litigation awarded.  In view of all the above complainant pleads strongly that he is entitled for compensation and damages and also costs as per the principle laid down in the above two citations since there is deficiency in service and dereliction of duty on the part of OP.

          The contention of the OP is that when the complainant brought the washing machine for repair for first time in the month of February, 2012, on verification of the machine, there is defect in PCB which was repaired after conducting test in the persons of the complainant who took delivery of the same and later in the month of July, 2012 for the 2nd time when the complainant brought the said machine for repair on verification it was come to the notice that spin was not functioning and the same was also rectified because of clutch assembling of the motor spoiled due to heavy load used by the complainant.  After explaining all the problems and defect the OP repair the same by replacing the clutch assembly with new one and the complainant took delivery on 28.07.2012.  When the complainant later telephone to the OP and informed that the said machine is not working, The OP asked the complainant to bring the same to the service center by the complainant did not do so and gave only notice on 25.08.2012 through his advocate and after receipt of the said notice the OP talked our phone with the complainant replied that the nothing to worry and brought the washing machine to the service center of the OP on 31.08.2012 for repair and on the same day the defect was rectified and the washing machine was delivered to the complainant through the kalasi of the OP and by that time the complainant did not come job sheet stating that the same was misplaced but believing the words of the complainant the OP ignored the same but taking advantage of the same the complainant filed the complaint only to harass the OP and with a view to grab money wrongfully from the OP which clearly shows the attitude of the complainant and but defame the OP in the society.  Therefore the OP pleads to dismiss the complaint since there is no deficiency in service or dereliction of duty on his part.

The complainant submitted a citation (2009 CJ 118(TN), AP No-596 of 2003 decided on 09.09.2008, Hyundai motors India Ltd VS Usha Rani Pardhasaradhi and another consumer protection act,1986 and section-2 (1) (F) – Motor Car –manufacturing defect – vehicle sent to works of nearly on 20 occasions – no material to repudiate said claim- complainant has gone to the extent of selling a physical as she was not in a position to bear inconvenience she has undergone with frequent repairs – there is deficiency in service  on the part of 2nd OP – new infirmity in order – district forum allowing compensation.

Another citation submitted by the complainant (2009 CJ 21 (DEL), appeal No-126 of 2008 decided on 09.07.2008, Rajiv Gulati Vs Tata Engineering and the Locomotive Company Ltd and others, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections-2(1) Again (F) and 14(1) (D) – vehicles – manufacturing defect – new vehicle purchased defect in power steering – defect issued to be persisting despite several check ups and service – inherent defect as a result of poor workmanship of manufactures causing loss and damage to complainant – complainant constrain to sell the vehicle as defect could not be cured – a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) besides Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards cost of litigation awarded.  In view of all the above complainant pleads strongly that he is entitled for compensation and damages and also costs as per the principle laid down in the above two citations since there is deficiency in service and dereliction of duty on the part of OP.

From the material available on record and oral arguments submitted by both the parties it is evident that the OP has made concerted and sincere efforts in repairing the washing machine by finding the defects and rectifying the same even for the third time but the job sheet which is supposed to be handed over to the OP by the complainant he is not given to the OP by the complainant pleading that it was misplaced shows the attitude of the complainant and also the mischief played in the transaction.  It is further established that by improper functioning of the washing machine is due to heavy load of clothes being put into the washing machine beyond its capacity by the complainant which is root cause for the continuous problem in the operation of the said machine.  In view of the above no deficiency or dereliction in duty on the part of the OP is witnessed as per the material and oral submissions submitted in the above regard.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed except the costs of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) which is estimated towards the transportation for repairing to the washing machine for three times to reach the service center and back to the response of the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed but with a transportation cost of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) to be payable by the OP to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 19th day of August, 2014.

 

 

Member                                                                 President

 

C.C.No.23 of 2013

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

For complainant:-                                   For opposite parties:-

 

        PW 1.                                                      RW 1.

 

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

 

Ex.A-1 Bill No.1467 Dt.14.02.2012 for Rs.1,630/- issued by OP in favour             

     of the complainant.  

Ex.A-2 Bill No.00335 Dt.28.07.2012 for Rs.3,800/- issued by OP in            

     favour of the complainant.

Ex.A-3 Job Sheet No.1122 Dt.14.07.2012.

Ex.A-4 Visiting Card of the OP.

Ex.A-5 Office copy of registered lawyer notice Dt.25.08.2012.

Ex.A-6 Acknowledgement from the Opposite Party.

 

For O.Ps. :-    Ex.B – NIL -

 

 

 

                     

 

                                                                                                 President.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T SRIRAMA MURTHY M.A.,L.L.B.]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. G APPALA NAIDU M.COM.,MBA,PGDCS,B.L.,PGDMVO]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.