Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/522

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Elect Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

BS Virk Adv

03 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:522 dated 25.07.2014                 

                               Date of decision: 03.12.2021.

 

Gurmeet Singh son of Shri Hari Singh resident of House No.B-XXI-13262/1, Link Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

 

1.LG Electronics Pvt.Ltd, A Wing, 3^rd Floor, D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/authorized representative.

2.Mr.Inderjeet Dhimja partner of M/s.Mehtab Motors & Trading Company ,#300-L, Model Town, Ludhiana.

3.M/s LGEIL, vill. Jhande, Near Baddowal, Railway Station, Opp.Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Incharge/authorized signatory/M.D.

                                                                                                                                                                                                           …..Opposite parties

 

          Complaint under section 12, 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.B.S.Virk, Advocate

For OP1 and OP3          :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Exparte

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one LG 1.5 Ton inverter air conditioner from the OP2 vide invoice No.17858 dated 24.05.2013 for an amount of Rs.47,500/-. The said A.C was manufactured by the OP2. Merely after two weeks, the air conditioner went out of order and stopped cooling. The complainant lodged a claim with the OP2 who suggested to lodge the complaint with the customer care of the OP1 and OP3. Thereafter, on contacting the OP1 and OP3, a mechanic immediately came and repaired the air conditioner and assured that it will not give any problem in future. However, the problem recurred again. The air condition again stopped working itself after some time. The matter was again reported to the OPs who sent a mechanic but he could not detect the fault. In the month of April-May, 2014 the complainant lodged three complaints with the OPs but all in vain. The mechanic who visited for the last time told the complainant that there was a manufacturing defect in the air conditioner and the same was not repairable. As a result, the complainant contacted the OPs for replacement and they assured that they would replace the same with a new one. However, thereafter, the OPs failed to repair the same. A legal notice dated 22.05.2014 served upon the OPs also failed to evoke any positive response. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the air conditioner with a new one and be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lac along with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1 and OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the air conditioner in question is in perfect condition. Its cooling and other parameters were normal when the service engineer visited the complainant last time. According to the OP1 and OP3, the air conditioner in question is installed in the hall room of 350 sq.feet size whereas a 1.5 ton air conditioner can have efficiency of cooling the area upto 150 sq. feet. Therefore, the capacity of the air conditioner cannot be challenged keeping in view the size of the room where it is installed. OP1 and OP3 further pleaded that the complainant was advised by the service engineer at the time of installation that the capacity of the air conditioner was not as per the size of the room where it was being installed. However, the complainant insisted that the air conditioner be installed in the hall room of 350 sq. feet approximately. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP1 and OP3. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In separate written statement filed on behalf of OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the OP2 is only a dealer of the OP1 for selling their products and in case of any defect in the products, the OP2 always refers the customers to the customer care helpline of the OP1 and OP3 for repair/service etc. If the air conditioner was not working properly or was not repairable, then it is liability of the OP1 and OP3 and not of the OP2. Op3 has also made a prayer for dismissal of complaint.              

4.                In evidence, complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other hand, the OP1 and OP3 submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh.Sucha Singh, Senior Manager of LG Electronics Private Limited and closed the evidence.

6.                Thereafter, OP2 failed to adduce any evidence despite affording numerous opportunities and also absented from the proceedings from 27.01.2020 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.03.2021.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records very carefully.

8.                The grievance of the complainant is that the air conditioner was not functioning properly and it would stop cooling. Thereafter, the visiting mechanic could not detect the defect in the air conditioner. It has also been claimed that the mechanic who visited last stated that the air conditioner was not repairable. It has also been contended by counsel for the complainant that there was some defective part in the air conditioner which was changed by the OPs for a sum of Rs.6000/- and the complainant was made to wait for 1 ½ year for the replacement of the part which at that time, according to the OPs, was not available. However, for proving all these allegations, the complainant merely submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, but has not examined any expert witness who could prove as to what defect was there in the air conditioner. Similarly, the plea that some part was required to be repaired or was repaired for a sum of Rs.6000/- is not pleaded in the complaint and the arguments advanced by counsel for the complainant in this regard is virtually beyond pleadings nor any evidence has been led in this regard.

9.                It has been pointed out by the counsel for the OP1 and OP2 at the time of arguments that during the pendency of the complaint, the air conditioner was got examined from a service engineer of Samsung Company who has submitted his report dated 13.08.2018. In the said report given by Pawan Arora, Authorized Service Centre of Samsung Imperial Refrigeration has stated that he visited the residence of the complainant on 10.08.2018 and inspected the indoor unit and outdoor unit of the air conditioner which was found to be working fine and there was no problem in the air conditioner during inspection. It simply required general service because of some dust particle in the filter of the air conditioner. From the report of service engineer, it is further evident that there is no defect in the air conditioner and it was found working properly on 10.08.2018 even after a period of about 5 years as the air conditioner in question was purchased by the complainant in the year 2013. In the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that he was supplied a defective air conditioner which requires to be replaced as claimed by the complainant.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.12.2021.

Gurpreet Sharma