PRESENT: Complainant in person.

         Sh. Sucha Singh Dhillon, Area Service Manager for OPs.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

         Concisely put, 3-4 years ago, the Complainant had purchased one LG Micro Wave Oven from OP No.1 for Rs.29,000/-, the delivery of which was given at his residential address, but no bill was given, saying that the same would be sent later on. It was alleged that when after one year the said Oven started giving problems, repeated complaints were lodged with the OPs, but they did not pay any heed to that. It was in March, 2008, the complete electronic front plate of on & off was taken by the representative of OPs for repairing the same. But despite repeated complaints made by the Complainant and his son by way of telephones, posts, e-mails, personal visits to the OPs, neither the Micro Wave Oven was repaired and made functional nor even the said front plat of on & off was returned to him and the same remains non-functional till date, due to which the Complainant and his family members could not avail and enjoy the facility of Micro Wave Oven.

Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) to repair and make the Micro Wave Oven in working condition.

(ii) to replace the Micro Wave Oven at the cost of OPs or to refund Rs.29,000/- purchase price of Micro Wave Oven.

(iii) to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of the lacklustre approach of the OP in not redressing the grievance of the Complainant and for causing inconvenience, harassment and mental agony, torture.

(iv) The cost of the present complaint, as found fit by this Hon’ble Court, may also be awarded in favour of the Complainant.

(v)  Any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice by this Hon’ble Forum.

2]       Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]       OPs in their joint written statement, pleaded that nowhere in the averments, the Complainant had given the exact date of purchase of the LG Microwave Oven and there was no evidence that at what price the said appliance was purchased. Neither there was any proof if for the said particular appliance, bill was not given to the Complainant at the time of delivery. It has been clarified that LG Electronics is having its Branch Office only at Chandigarh. The one mentioned at Mohali is not LEGIL Office, but only an authorized service center for the Company. It was asserted that neither the Complainant nor his son ever visited the OPs for redressal of their alleged grievances. The first complaint that the OPs received was on 27.3.2008 and before that there was no complaint in their records. As a matter of fact, the said appliance was more than 10 years old and the technology has changed a lot since then and such gadgets have by now become obsolete and out of date; parts and components for which were just not available and need replacement with new ones. Its Engineers did pick up the faulty PCB of the said Microwave Oven from Complainant’s place, for the repair of which the Complainant was in constant touch with OPs. The said defective PCB was later sent back to Complainant’s residence, but he refused to accept the same, saying that it was to be handed over to him in Court only. The OPs are still willing and ready to return the defective PCB to the Complainant. All other material contentions of the Complainants were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, an offer was made to the Complainant that he could buy a new product from market and OPs assure him the best possible price and model next time.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint/ written statement and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the Complainant in person and the authorized representative of OPs. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having made certain complaints to the OPs in respect of one LG Microwave Oven, which the Complainant claims to have purchased from OP No. 1 for Rs.29,000/- a few years back and that the said Oven started giving problems, for which he lodged repeated complaints with the OPs, have all been established.

ii] The only point in dispute between the parties is that whereas the Complainant says that he had purchased the Microwave Oven from the OPs a few years back and that the same was not functioning properly and further, all complaints made by the Complainant with the OPs were not attended to, as a result of which, the Microwave Oven till date continues to be un-repaired and non-functional. On the contrary, the contention of the OPs is that there was no evidence that the Complainant had ever purchased the said LG Microwave Oven from them, on which date and at which price. Further, the OPs say that after inspecting the Microwave Oven, it was found that the same was a 10 years old gadget and it was not within the warranty period of the OPs. Since a lot of time has passed since the Microwave Oven was purchased by the Complainant, the technology has undergone tremendous changes and at this stage, the said gadget has become totally obsolete and outdated. For such gadgets, the parts and components are just not available and these simply need replacement with new ones. It is admitted by the OPs that their Engineers did pick up the faulty PCB of the said Microwave Oven from the Complainant’s place for repairs and they have been in constant touch with the OPs, which has been further evidenced by the pleadings of the Complainant himself that he has been sending letters, mails and e-mails to the OPs. The OPs further say that the defective PCB, as also the complete gadget was not repairable and could not be made functional, due to which they sent back the said PCB to the Complainant’s place, but he refused to accept the same saying that it should be handed over to him in Court only. But the OPs are still willing and ready to return the defective PCB to the Complainant. 

6]       From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, it is quite clear that the Complainant does not possess any document, whatsoever, which could prove that he had purchased the said Microwave Oven from the OPs, on which date and at what price and what kind of warranty/guarantee was given by the OPs at the time of the said purchase. In the absence of these basic documents, it is very difficult to fix any liability on the OPs on account of the alleged deficiency of service on their part.  If the said Microwave Oven is in fact, 10 years old, and has become defective on account of its use over this long period and further, that there is no warranty or guarantee for the said period on record, the OPs are not duty bound to render any service to the Complainant i.e. to repair the Microwave Oven or to make it fully functional after such a long time. As rightly pointed out by the OPs, after using the Microwave Oven for 10 long years, the only remedy with the Complainant is to get it replaced with a new product having the latest technology from the market and the OPs have assured him the best possible price and model for the same. 

7]       From the above it is quite clear that the Complainant has not been able to establish his case conclusively in his favour. He has also not been able to prove any deficiency of service or indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As a matter of fact, the Complainant in the present case, has no grounds or contentions in his favour and against the OPs. Therefore, the present complaint cannot succeed in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs and it must fail.

8]       In view of the foregoings, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

9]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29.01.2010                                                                                                                              

‘Dutt’