Haryana

Kurukshetra

170/2017

Suriender Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.G. - Opp.Party(s)

R.P.Kaushik

20 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.170 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 21.08.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:20.03.2019.

 

Dr. Surinder Sharma Sapra Colony, Salarpur Road, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office: A Wing (3^rd Floor), D-3, District Center, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director.
2. Prem T.V. Centre, Shop No.6-, Arya Samaj Market, Opp. Sector-17, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor. 
3. Mr. Sunil, L.G.Service Franchise Kurukshetra, near Post Office, Uttam Market, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

….Opposite parties.

BEFORE:    Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. R.P.Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the opposite parties.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Dr. Surinder Sharma against L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased L.G.Regrigerator B217BSJV from the Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- vide receipt No.12372 dt. 31.03.2013 with warranty of five years.  It is alleged that since the date of its purchase, the refrigerator was giving troubles to the complainant and the compressor of said refrigerator was defective and not functioning.  It is further alleged that the complainant made complaints bearing No.RNA170512049468 and RNARNP170524013646 to the Ops but the Ops did not repair the refrigerator.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective refrigerator of complainant with the new one or in alternative to refund Rs.70,000/- as cost of refrigerator and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; suppression of material facts and locus standi and that the refrigerator of complainant has become out of warranty as the same had been purchased on 31.03.2013.  Further it is submitted that the refrigerator of the complainant was repaired on 14.07.2017.  The compressor of the same has been replaced and the refrigerator of complainant has been made to be in perfect working condition. It is also submitted that warrantee of five years means warrantee of whole refrigerator for one year + four years warrantee of the compressor only. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. Counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant contended that complainant had purchased a refrigerator from op no.2 on 31.3.2013 for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. The op no.2 has given 1 +4 years warrantee for that unit. Counsel for complainant argued that said unit was not doing work properly and he had made complaints many times to the ops. After complaint, ops have replaced the compressor of above said unit but after changing of that compressor the said unit was not doing work properly and he also got examined the said unit from another shop and copy of said report is mark A in which it is clearly mentioned that said unit was not doing work properly. So he argued that complainant is entitled to refund of total amount of Rs.70,000/-. He has also relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as Halda Office Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, II (2012) CPJ 359 and Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. Bharat Smelting Company & anr. II (2012) CPJ 589.

7.             Ld. Counsel for ops contended that it is admitted fact that complainant has purchased the said unit from op no.2 and is also argued by ld. Counsel that on 14.9.2017 ops have already replaced the compressor of said unit and it was working properly after replacement of the compressor and after that complainant has made no complaint about the said unit and so he argued that complaint may please be dismissed. Moreover, it was also argued by ld. Counsel for ops that there is no provision to refund amount in the warrantee period. He has also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. Decided on 29.3.2006 and decision of Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Vanita Vs. Himalaya Photo Store, FA No.542 of 2013 decided on 20.12.2013.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have also gone through the record as well as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties.

9.             The copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.C1 reveals that complainant purchased the refrigerator in question from op no.2 on 31.3.2013 for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. It is also an admitted fact between the parties that the compressor of the refrigerator was replaced on 14.7.2017 but still there is grievance of the complainant that refrigerator is not working properly. Though the ops have resisted the complaint on the ground that after replacement of the compressor of the refrigerator in question, same has been made in perfect working condition, but however the ops have not got examined the refrigerator in question from their expert engineer to prove that refrigerator in question has no any kind of defect and is working in perfect condition. Whereas the complainant has placed on record report of M/s Shagu Air Conditioning Works as mark A in which it is clearly mentioned that problems of refrigerator remain the same.  So, there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

10.            In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator in question with a new one of same make and model and in case the refrigerator of same make and model is not available, then the ops shall make refund of the price of the refrigerator in question i.e. Rs.70,000/- to the complainant.  The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of order till actual realization. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.: 20.3.2019. 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha)     (Neelam)  

                        Member               Member