District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.367/2020.
Date of Institution: 08.10.2020.
Date of Order: 28.07.2022.
Narender Aggarwal , H.No. 622, Sectgor-28, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
LG Electroncis India Pvt. Ltd.,, Plot No.35, Sector-20A, Faridabad.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Complainant Shri Narender Kumar in person.
Sh. Rajesh Khanna, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased split Ac from opposite party. He was facing ice problem so he had filed a complaint on customer care, complaint No. RNP190722070255 dated 22.7.2019 . For this Mr. Iqbal (Mobile No. 9599989153) engineer had visited to look for the problem, he had informed that the blower motor was to be replaced which cost for INR 2394/- so he agreed to it. Mr. Dilshad (Mobile No. 7291981632 had arrived for replacing it and get the work done and he paid for the services. Till he was facing some issue then he had again made a complaint, Mr. Dilshad arrived for looking what was the issue, how he was saying his stabilizer was not working and removed stabilizer and supply of electricity was made direct. Then also the issue not resolved. Again he filed a complaint then Mr. Ravi (mobile No. 7042790239) engineer was sent for looking the issue, he checked and said that the compressor and PC had been damaged. Now he want to know why all such problems were being faced again and again one of his engineer was saying this was wrong and the another was saying this was wrong and all of them had made the situation so worst that AC was not in working condition anymore. The damage was being done by his engineer so the damage charges were not going to be paid by his side. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) to get the defects in the goods removed.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that at the very outset it was informed that the entire grievances with regard to the A.C in question repaired by the service engineer of the company wre tollay false and misconceived as it was pertinent to mention that for the very first time the complaint in the A.C was attended by the service engineer of the company on 22.07.2019 against the complaint RNP190722070255 and after due inspection of the A.C the motor assembly in the inner blower unit was found defective, at that time the A.C was beyond warranty period however being the old customer of the company the service engineer after approval from his seniors in the company had given the complainant most competitive rates and changed the motor assembly in the inner unit in Rs.2395/- and after due satisfaction of the working of the A.C the complainant paid the aforesaid amount to the service engineer. Thereafter the A.C was in perfect working condition and all the benefits thereof were enjoyed by the complainant till 08.11.2019 when the complainant made a telephonic complaint to the Area Sales and Service Incharge of his client at Faridabad pointing certain defect in the A.C and immediately thereafter the expert technician of the company visited the complainant and found defect in the compressor installed in the external unit of the A.C. The A.C in question was beyond warranty period, therefore, the service engineer of the company had given the complainant estimate for repair and change of compressor amounting to Rs.13492/- and after coming to know with regard to the estimate the complainant mis behaved with the service enginner and started hurling abuses apart from leveling false and and frivolous allegations that the A.C had been damaged previously by the service engineer at the time of change of motor assembly in the blower of the internal unit of the A.C, inspite of the vital fact that the A.C had been perfectly working w.e.f. 22.07.2019 till 08.11.2019 when the same was previously repaired . More over the allegations as leveled by the complainant do not find any force and cannot be established as previously on 22.07.2019 the motor assembly in the internal unit of the A.C was repaired, whereas the compressor subsequently found defected was installed in the external unit of the A.C. which was not even touched by the service engineer, therefore, no question of damaging the A.C as alleged simply arise at all. Even then the complainant remained totally adamant on the stand of repair of A.C free of cost which was virtually not possible as the A.C had already crossed the warranty period hence the complainant were told by the service engineer that the cost of repair of the A.C must be borned by the complainant and as a goodwill gesture the service engineer would try his level best for maximum discount form the company. It was pertinent to mention that the opposite party was a consumer friendly professional company and after coming to know the complainant problem and considering the vital fact that the complainant were old customer the opposite party offered maximum discount of 58% and told the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.5728/-. Initially the complainant were not ready to pay the amount and subsequently agreed to ay the amount but after repair of the A.C. The service engineer requested the complainant to make upfront payment of Rs.5728/- as per company policy for which the complainant were never agreed. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant – Shri Narender Kumar has made a statement that affidavit alongwith documents already tendered by the complainant be read in his evidence and closed the same. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of the complainant has been closed vide order dated 26.7.2022.
4. Shri Rajesh Khanna, counsel for the opposite party has made a statement that written statement already filed on behalf of opposite party be read as his evidence. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of the opposite party has been closed vide order dated 28.07.2022..
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – M/s. LG Electroncis with the prayer to get the defects in the goods removed.
8. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party has stated that as good gesture of company, opposite party is ready to reapir the air conditioner, subject to payment of the spare parts.
9. Keeping in view of the statement of opposite party, Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direciton to opposite party to
reapir the A.C in question with free of costs within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. There are no order as to costs.. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 28.07.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
