STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.101 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution:08.03.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  :15.03.2011

Sh. S. P. Kansal son of Late Sh. K. R. Kansal r/o H.No.405, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.

.……Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

1.     L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., 177 G, Industrial Area I, Chandigarh.

2.     L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., SCF No.56, Phase II, Mohali.

3.     L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur – Kasana Road, Greater Noida – 201306 (UP).

              ....Respondents/OPs.

BEFORE:            MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. S. P. Kansal, appellant (complainant) in person.

                        Sh. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the respondents.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                 This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 29.01.2011 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.

2.                     Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased a LG Microwave Oven from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.29,000/-. After one years of its purchase, the said appliance started giving problems and repeated complaints were lodged by the complainant with the OPs in that regard. It was averred that in the month of March 2008, the engineers of OP took away the complete electronic front place of On & Off for repairing the same but despite repeated complaints made by him through telephone, posts, Emails and personal visits, neither the Microwave Oven was repaired nor the said front plate was returned to him till date. Due to this act on the part of OPs, as per the complainant, he and his family members suffered immense harassment and mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant filed the present complaint.

3.                     In their joint reply, OPs denied the fact of purchasing the said Microwave Oven by the complainant from them as there was no proof with the complainant as regards the same. OPs pleaded that neither the complainant nor his son ever visited them for redressal  of their alleged grievances. It was next pleaded that the complainant lodged the first complaint with them on 27.3.2009. As regards the appliance in question, it was asserted that the same was more than 10 years old and the technology has changed a lot since then and such gadgets have now become obsolete.   It was admitted by the OPs that ther engineers picked up the faulty PCB of the said Microwave Oven from the complainant’s place for repairs and the said defective PCB was later sent back to the complainant’s residence who refused to accept the same saying that it was to be handed over before the court only. As per the OPs, they are still willing and ready to return the defective PCB to the complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, these OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 29.1.2010 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

6.                 The complainant has challenged the impugned order through this appeal.

7.                 We have heard the arguments of the appellant/complainant in person and the learned counsel for the respondents/OPs and have perused the record.

8.                 The complainant has not mentioned any date of the purchase of the Microwave Oven. His contention is that it was purchased 3-4 years back, which is disputed by the OPs. Their contention (in Para No.11) is that the said appliance is more than 10 years old and due to subsequent modification in the technology, the prices are coming down and the products are becoming obsolete. According to them, the depreciated value of Microwave Oven is negligible. It has gone beyond repair and this fact, according to the OPs, were told to the complainant but even then, he preferred to file this complaint. Admittedly, the Microwave Oven is not within warranty and the OPs are not duty bound to repair the same. The learned District Forum, therefore, rightly declined the request made by the complainant.

9.                 It is argued by the complainant that the OPs had taken away the complete electronic front plate of Off and On, which has not been returned to him. It was admitted by the OPs in Para No.3(d) of their reply that their engineers had picked up the faulty PCB of the said Microwave Oven from the customer’s place. However, in Para No.11(e), they mentioned that the said PCB was still available with them and was sent to the complainant’s residence but he rejected it and told their engineer that it is to be handed over in the Court. It was admitted that they still had the defective PCB and would return it to the complainant. There is no dispute about it that the said PCB has not so far been returned by the OPs to the complainant.

10.               In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is modified and the OPs are directed to return the PCB to the complainant. The parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

11.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15^th March 2011.

Sd/-

 [NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.101 of 2010)

Argued by:            Sh. S. P. Kansal, appellant (complainant) in person.

                        Sh. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the respondents.

Dated the 15^th day of March, 2011.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been allowed.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)                                              (NEENA SANDHU)    

                MEMBER                                                            PRESIDING MEMBER