Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/964/2016

Smt. Meena - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Customer Care - Opp.Party(s)

Gautam Bhardwaj

30 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/964/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	19/10/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	30/08/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Smt. Meena, Resident of H.No.1553, Sec.7-C, Chandigarh.

 

…… Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1.   LG Customer Care, Plot No. 57, Industrial Area, 1^st Floor, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

    

Head Office:

 

2.   LG Customer Care, Plot No. 51, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201306, through its General Manager.

 

3.   Satlej Enterprises, SCO 84, Sector 35, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

………… Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA      MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. Gautam Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.

            Sh. Arjan Grover, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Briefly stated, the Complainant purchased one LG LED from Opposite Party No.3 – M/s Satlej Enterprises on 12.04.2016 vide invoice Annexure C-1. The said LED encountered audio/video problem within one month of its purchase. Thereafter, upon lodging Complaint on 22.06.2016, the motherboard of the said LED was replaced. However, the same problem again occurred twice and the motherboard of the LED was replaced. Despite replacement of motherboard, thrice, the problem remained the same. It has been alleged that the Opposite Parties neither provided any job-sheet nor any acknowledgement regarding the visits and replacement of the mother board.  Accordingly, a legal notice was got served upon the Opposite Parties on 27.09.2016, but the Opposite Parties did not bother to reply the same. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties, in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that whenever the Complaint(s) were received from the Complainant, the same were duly addressed/ redressed by the Opposite Parties. The LED in question was working up to the standards of the OP-Company and was free from any defect/ problem. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      The main grievance of the Complainant is that the LED in question purchased by her, started giving the problems, within few months of its purchase. After filing the Complaints with the Opposite Parties, they replaced the motherboard of the LED, thrice, and despite that the said LED didn’t function properly. On perusal of the documentary evidence, Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, available on the record, we find that as and when the Complaint(s) were received by the Opposite Parties, necessary repairs were carried out. Moreover, the Complainant has failed to adduce any expert technical report, to substantiate her case. In the absence of which, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

8.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Party adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to 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

30^th August, 2017                                               Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

   PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                         Sd/- 

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER