BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 309  of 29.4.2010 

                                                Decided on:          14.9.2011

Rajinder Singh aged 42 years s/o Sh.Rachpal Singh r/o H.No.B-1/968,Bharat Colony, Old Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 L.G.Electronics India(P) Ltd., Plot no.S1,Surajpur Karna Road, Greater Noida 201 306( U.).)

2.                 Customers Services Department, L.G.Electronic SCO No.142-143,Third Floor, Sector 34-A,Chandigarh 160 002.

3.                 M/s Verma Electronic Show Room no.9-A,Kanika Garden City centre, Rajpura,Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                        ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Complainant with Counsel Sh.Amrit Lal Goyal,

                                         Advocate

For ops no.1&2             Sh.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate

For op no.3                    Ex-parte

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant purchased a five star refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics India(P)Ltd. i.e. op no.1 of the capacity of 230 liter for Rs.12,100/- from op no.3, an authorized dealer of op no.1, vide invoice no.2779 dated 4.11.2009.It was claimed by the ops through the media  and openly that their refrigerator having five star mark is energy saver and that it consumed only 260 units per year.

2.       When the refrigerator was installed the same had not consumed the requisite energy of 260 units per year and rather the same consumed 438 units per year.

3.       The complainant filed a complaint in this regard with the ops and as a result thereof the thermostat of the refrigerator was replaced but when again the refrigerator was put to use, the same consumed 616 units per year. The complainant was advised by the ops to fix the refrigerator between 5-7 points during summer. However, when the refrigerator was fixed above 5 points the supply come in direct contact and did not effect any cut and off concluding the consumption the same come to 928 units per year.

4.       The complainant lodged complaint No.1040536473 dated 5.4.2010 and in response there to the engineer of the ops attended the complaint but he could not satisfy the complainant. The complainant conveyed the message on 10.4.2010 and lodged the complaint no.1040823902 but no action was taken. Another complaint no.1041231427 dated 12.4.2010 was lodged and on 13.4.2010 the complainant received a message regarding the closure of the complaint under the pretext that no services were required by the customer. This forced the complainant to lodge another complaint no.1041610049 dated 16.4.2010 but the same was closed and the complainant was directed to call again.

5.       Thus the complainant lodged several complaint with the ops but they failed to respond describing the act of the ops as a deficiency of service and also having defrauded him, the complainant  approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) for a direction to the ops for the refund of the price of the refrigerator, the payment of Rs.15000/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops and
Rs.15000/- as the loss of the valuable time of the complainant.

6.       On notice, ops no.1&2 appeared and filed their written version, whereas op no.3 was proceeded against exparte.

7.       In the written version filed by ops no1&2 it is averred that whereas op no.1 is the manufacturer , op no.2 is the customer care service center of op no.1 and op no.3 is the dealer of the goods. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased the five star ,230 liter refrigerator from op no.3 ,but it is denied that the refrigerator had consumed on an average 438 units per year. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant had filed a complaint before the ops having disclosed that although the refrigerator was giving OK consumption data as per the norm of the company but he insisted upon the replacement of the thermostat and which was replaced. It is denied when the refrigerator was put to use, the same consumed 616 units per annum. Similarly, it is denied that the complainant was asked to put the regulator between 5-7 points during summer and that when the regulator was put between the said points, it had come into contact with the direct supply and no cut was effected and the consumption shown per annum was 928 units.

8.       It is further averred that the recording of the consumption alleged by the complainant is wrong as he had been using a local made energy calculator for calculating the energy consumption. When the officials from the office of the ops checked the refrigerator, they found that the complainant has fixed a number of local made wires with the stabilizer so as to calculate the energy consumption. The complainant was apprised about the same and advised that it was not proper to calculate the consumption with the help of sub standard material

9.       It is also averred that the star rating is given to each equipment by Bureau of  Energy Efficiency ,Ministry of Power , Govt. of India, where each and every equipment manufactured by the ops is duly checked in a    specialized laboratory and thereafter the star rating is assigned to each equipment based upon the energy consumed by it. In case the complainant has got any objection with the testing and the equipment, as provided under the Energy conservation Act, the complainant has a remedy to challenge the same before Bureau of Energy Efficiency but the complainant has not opted for the same. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

10.     In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.CW1/A, alongwith the documents,Exs.C1 to C4 and the complainant closed the evidence.

11.     On the other hand, on behalf of the ops no.1&2 their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Surjit Singh, Service Manager of L.G.Electronics,Dharampura Bazar, Patiala alongwith document,Ex.R2 and  closed their evidence.

12.     The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

13.     The complainant has simply produced in evidence,Ex.C4, the photo copy of the invoice no.2779 dated 4.11.2009 with regard to having purchased  one refrigerator make LG 230 liter single door for Rs.12100/- from op no.3.Since it is admitted by the complainant that the complainant had purchased a five star refrigerator from op no.3, we have no reason to doubt about the same.

14.     The complainant has alsoproduced,Ex.C3, a self prepared note giving the name of the appliance brand name, model year type, Gross volume, storage, volume etc and electrical consumption of 260 units per year but the complainant has not produced any warranty or other terms and conditions showing the consumption of 280 units of a five star refrigerator per annum.

15.     Taking into account the averments made in the complaint and reply filed there to by the ops and taking for the sake of arguments that a five star refrigerator has to consume 260 units per annum, it is not for the complainant to have led a cogent and convincing evidence that the refrigerator consumed more than 260 units per annum. It was possible only in case the complainant put the refrigerator to regular tests under an electronic device, which could measure the consumption of the electricity on per day/month basis. We fail to understand as to how the complainant has disclosed in the complaint that  earlier the refrigerator consumed 438 units per annum and  after the replacement of the thermostat it consumed 616 units per annum and again it consumed 928 per annum. After all some criteria must have been   by the complainant in calculating the consumption of the electricity in terms of units but that criteria has not been disclosed either in the complaint or in the sworn affidavit,Ex.CW1/A by the complainant.

16.     The complainant is very much conversant with the working of the electronic system in as much as he is the holder of the certificate in National Council for Vocational Training in Radio, T.V.dated July,1987( copy Ex.C1)issued by the Govt. of India Ministry of Labour and the  holder of Diploma in theoretic and practical course on television issued by Ex. Servicemen Television Training  Institute,Patiala( Ex.C2).Therefore, it was expected of the complainant to have either prepared or obtained a report from a qualified person with regard to consumption of the electricity made by the refrigerator with the help of an electronic equipment, in the absence of which there is no reason to accept the allegation made by the complainant that the refrigerator consumed the units per annum as disclosed  by him in the complaint as also in his sworn affidavit.

17.     It is also important to note that the complainant has not produced in evidence any complaint to have been lodged by him with the ops regarding the high consumption of the energy by the refrigerator so as to redress his grievance and therefore, the complainant could not attribute any deficiency of service on the part of the ops Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:14.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President