Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/29

K.K. Dhyani - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.G. Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

                    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                           GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 12.01.2015

Complaint Case. No.29/15                                                    Date of order:    22.10.2018

IN  MATTER OF

K.K. Dhyani, House no.189 C, A2B Ekta Apartment, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063                                                                                                                          Complainant

VERSUS

Service centre, LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd., 36 Main Rama Road, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, Near Moti Nagar, New Delhi-15

                                                                                                                  Opposite party-1

Head office, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 51, Suraj Pur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Udyog Vihar, Noida-201308

                                                                                                                  Opposite party-2                   

                                    ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

                        Shri K.K. Dhayani named above herein the complainant has filed the present complaint  U/S-12 of the CPA act against the OPs. Brief facts of the complaint necessary for the disposal are that  he purchased AMC from Op-1 vide invoice HLP no.LK 030916 dated 15.01.2012 for washing machine model no. WD10185TP for consideration of Rs. 3960/- for three years i.e 15.01.2012 to 14.01.2015. The complainant alleged that the washing machine developed fault in month of February 2013 and a complaint was lodged by him. But the same was delayed one pretext or other by taking the plea that the part PCB and leg support are not available. Mr. Amit Rathore Area service manager of OP telephonically on 15.09.2014 refused to repair the washing machine. The complainant sent legal notice dated 10.10.2014 but no reply given nor the dispute of the complainant was redressed. Hence the present complaint for directions to the OP to apologies   for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and to pay Rs. 50,000/- for physical mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation expenses and also Rs. 36,000/- the present cost of the refrigerator or replace the same.     

                        After notice OPs-1 and 2 appeared and filed reply to the complaint taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is without any merit and is not based on any material facts and not maintainable based on given facts and circumstances. The OP asserted that the washing machine has one year warranty and within warranty period the Op is liable to replace  the defective part and repair the washing machine as per terms and condition of the warranty. The present complaint is barred by limitation period. Though the OP on goodwill gestures offered to refund the AMC amount but the same was refused by the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint RNA no. 140314028644 and No. 140427002987 dated 14.03.2014 and 28.04.2014 respectively were closed on ground of non availability of parts as the product in dispute was 5 years old. It further asserted that the OP was also ready to refund as per refund policy. The OP on merits denied the allegations of the complainant and asserted that the complainant was offered AMC amount which is refused and the product in dispute can not be repaired as the parts are not available. It asserted that there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.       

                        The rejoinder to the reply filed by the complainant reiterating the facts of the complaint and controverting the stand taken in the reply. It further asserted that as per the AMC terms and conditions the OP is liable to repair, replace the damaged parts during the period of AMC. He further alleged that the Op has the knowledge about the period of production of the product in dispute and after that sold the AMC.

                        The parties were asked to file affidavit of evidence.  The complainant testifying the facts stated in the complaint on oath. He relied on AMC receipt Annexure –A, Job sheet dated 27.02.2013 Annexure-B, Job sheet dated 23.02.2013 Annexure –C and copy of pages of personal diary.   The OP also filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Rishab Jain director manager services reiterating the facts stated in the reply on oath. It also relied on Annexure-R1 colly Job sheet dated 23.02.2013 and 28.04.2014.

                        We have heard complainant in person. Despite several opportunities and imposition of cost on OP, it failed to file W.A. In this circumstances the Forum has no option except to pass orders. We have also gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly filed by the parties.

                        The document annexure -A clearly shows that AMC was given by OP vide invoice HLP no.LK 030916 dated 15.01.2012 for washing machine model no. WD10185TP vide sale consideration of Rs. 3960/- for three years i.e. 15.01.2012 to 14.01.2015. The contention of OP that the product in dispute is 5 years old and consequently the relevant parts are not available is not tenable as the OP was well aware at time of selling AMC, that the model of the refrigerator is old and as per the conditions of AMC the OP under took to repair the refrigerator for three years.  The plea of the OP that the complainant failed to file the terms and condition of the AMC   also does not hold water as OP itself has also not showed any documents to substantiates that in case of parts being unavailable the Op can not wriggle out of their liability.  Hence the OPs failed to provide services as per AMC of the product.  Therefore, we are of considered view that there is deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice knowing well the period of production of the product in dispute and this factor should have been kept in consideration while selling the AMC.  

                        In view of above discussion and observations justice would be met to the complainant by refunding the AMC amount of Rs. 3960/- and further amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment to be paid within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p. a. from date of filing the complaint till actual realization.                     

 

Order pronounced on :- 22.10.2018

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                         (K.S. MOHI)                             MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT