Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/13/933

M/s Sai Trading Co. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Elect.India P ltd - Opp.Party(s)

11 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          C.C. No.933 of 20.12.2013

                                                          Date of Decision:11/08/2014

 

1.M/s Sai Trading Co.139, Block VIII, Mochpura Bazar, Ludhiana through Prop D.P.Jindel (Dharam Pal Jindel) S/o Prem Chand.

2.D.P.Jindel (Dharam Pal Jindel) S/o Prem Chand r/o 139, Block VIII, Mochpura Bazar, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      Complainants

                                                Versus

 

1.L.G. Electronics India P Ltd, A-27, Mohan Cooperative Indl Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through authorized signatory.

2.Pooja Electronics, Chowk Kothi Khawaja near Div. No.3, Ludhiana-141008 through its authorized signatory.

                                                                                                Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L. Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                   Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member

 

Present:       Sh. M.S.Sethi, Adv, for complainants.

                   Shri Govind Puri, Adv, for OP1.

                   Sh.Nitin Jain, Adv. for OP2.

 

                                                ORDER

 

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT.

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by M/s Sai Trading Co.139, Block VIII, Mochpura Bazar, Ludhiana through Prop D.P.Jindel (Dharam Pal Jindel) S/o Prem Chand (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against  L.G. Electronics India P Ltd, A-27, Mohan Cooperative Indl Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through authorized signatory and another (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘OPs’) directing them to replace the defective refrigerator or replaced necessary parts enabling the refrigerator in working conditions with extended warranty or to refund Rs.27,750/- alongwith interest @15% besides Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and tension suffered by the complainant and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant no.2 Sh.D.P.Jindel purchased new refrigerator 310 LTRGL 318 PNQS of OP1 from the OP2 vide bill No.5381 dated 16.10.2013 for Rs.27,750/- in the name of its firm i.e. OP1. The OP2 also provided owner’s manual consisting the warranty as issued by OP1 therein stating that product of the OP1 comes with warranty of 1+4 from the date of purchase that comprises of a 1 year warranty on all parts (except consumable, loose plastic parts, glass) in the first year. The complainant is running its small business in selling blankets etc for earning its self employment and livelihood with the help of one person at ground floor at the said address measuring 67 sq. yards and at the first floor of the said premises, the complainant alongwith family members also living therein and said refrigerator was purchased for residential use. Just within one month of the purchase of the said refrigerator, said refrigerator suddenly caught fire from the inside  on 17.11.2013 and on seeking smoke, the complainant opened the door and found burning of the door as well as internal body was found covered with blank fume/smoke. The complainant and its family members managed to control the same while putting water on the door and inside of the refrigerator as well as plug was switched off. The Ops were informed by the complainant and representative of the OP visited the site and take various snaps and also confirmed that all other electricity equipments like bulbs, fan, TV were also found in working condition and plug/wire to the refrigerator was also found ok and only refrigerator in side burnt suddenly. The complainant also informed the OP1 vide email dated 18.11.2013 and in response to said email, the OP vide email asked the complainant to provide the name, phone, address, city, state and model number of the product which was submitted by the complainant and it was assured by the OP that they will definitely help the complainant out from this situation. But despite repeated requests and despite serving legal notice dated 2.12.2013 and despite sending emails to the Ops, Ops failed to replace the refrigerator of the complainant and also failed to provide services qua the repair of the defective refrigerator of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Ops were duly served and appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written replies.

4.                Op1 filed the written reply through Shri Govind Puri, Advocate, in which, OP1 took up certain preliminary objections qua the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Form to try and decide the present complaint as the answering OP has no branch office in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum; present complaint is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations and has been blatantly fabricated to suit the designs of the complainant; the complainant has concealed the material and necessary information that the obligation of the answering Op under the warranty is to set right the refrigerator by repairing or replacing the defective parts only within one year of its purchase subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty card and the warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase. The refrigerator in question is working properly and the alleged fire on the front right hand bottom side door was burnt through external fire. On the complaint, the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the refrigerator in question and has taken the photographs of the refrigerator in question and submitted his report. It was found that the fire was through some external source and not from any short circuit. All the circuits were in order and the refrigerator was running normally and this fact itself shows that fire has occurred from some external source and not from inside as alleged by the complainant. There is no inherent defect in the refrigerator as alleged. Thus, the damage caused to the door of the refrigerator was not covered under warranty and the repair is on chargeable basis. Further, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement or refund of price of the refrigerator alongwith compensaton and damage as the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e.authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. On merits, the answering OP denied all the allegations of the complainant and stated it was clearly told by the service centre to the complainant that repair in the present case would be on chargeable basis, but the complainant refused to pay for the repair charges. It is denied that the product of the answering OP is suffering from some inherent defect as alleged. The complainant has failed to produce any evidence in support of his allegation of inherent defect. Further, it is submitted that as the fire has taken place due to the negligence of the complainant, thus, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount of refrigerator neither the complainant is entitled for the replacement of the product. There is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5.                OP2 filed the written reply through Sh.Nitin Jain, Advocate, in which, OP2 took up certain preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous; the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as the transaction is commercial one and the said refrigerator was purchased for business purposes in the name of Sai Trading Co.; this Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP because no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the answering OP as the guarantee/warrantee if any and that is the responsibility of OP1. Further, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that there is no manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator and all the equipments of the refrigerator are in working and ok position and no fire caught due to manufacturing defect. Infact the fire was caught the refrigerator due to negligence of the complainant. As per law for the negligence of the complainant, the answering OP cannot be made liable. On merits, the facts regarding purchase of the refrigerator in question and payment of the same as alleged are not denied. However, it is denied that the answering OP provided owner’s manual as alleged. However, it is submitted that the said refrigerator had been purchased and installed by the complainant for business purposes in the business premises as the same is clear from the bill dated 16.10.2013 which was issued in the name of complainant no.1. The refrigerator has not been purchased for residential use and it has not been installed at the residential portion. Further, it is submitted that from the condition of the refrigerator it appeared that something has been burnt near the refrigerator due to which, the fire caught the refrigerator. There is no manufacturing defect and al the equipments are in working condition and the refrigerator of the complainant is in ok position. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.                In order to prove case of complainant his learned counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA1 alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP1 tendered into evidence, affidavit of Sh.Dharminder Kumar, Service Engineer, L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Limited, Ludhiana as Ex.RA and affidavit Ex.RB of Sh.Sucha Singh Dhillon, Manager of L.G.Electronics India Limited, Ludhiana alongwith documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7, whereas, learned counsel for the OP2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Rakesh Gupta, its authorizerd Signatory, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the OP1 and rebutted the case of the complainant.

8.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record on the file very carefully.

9.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant no.2 had purchased the refrigerator in question from OP2 vide bill No.5381 dated 16.10.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.27,750/- in the name of its firm Sai Trading Co., Ludhiana. Refrigerator in question is within the period of warranty. Refrigerator suddenly caught fire on 17.11.2013 and front right door was got damaged. The complaint was lodged with Ops, who had appointed Sh.Dharminder Singh, Service engineer to inspect the refrigerator in question, who visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the refrigerator in question and submitted his report Ex.R7 alongwith photographs of the refrigerator in question attached with the report with the Ops.

10.              The balled contention between the parties is qua the cause of fire in the refrigerator in question. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that fire took place in the refrigerator from inside the door of the refrigerator due to short circuit, as a result of which, front door of the refrigerator was damaged. However, as per the contention of the learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 that fire took place in the refrigerator due to external source and not from any manufacturing defect or not due to any short circuit as all the internal circuits of the refrigerator were intact and in a proper condition and were not at all burnt and the refrigerator is still working condition.

11.              Perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.CA1, in which, he has deposed that he is complainant no.2 in the said complaint, thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances and he is competent to swear the present affidavit and he is filing C-1 to C-10 with this affidavit which is true and correct to the best of knowledge and belief. Perusal of this affidavit of complainant no.2  reveals that the complainant has not rebutted the defence plea of the Ops qua the cause of fire/accident, in which, the refrigerator of the complainant was burnt/damaged. Further, the complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 16.10.2013 Ex.C1 qua the purchase of the refrigerator in question from OP2, Ex.C2 copy of warranty card and correspondence took place between the complainant and Ops through emails Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 and Ex.C9, Ex.C7 copy of legal notice dated 2.12.2013, Ex.C8 copy of postal receipt and Ex.C10 copy of reply dated 12.12.2013 sent by Sh.Nitin Jain, Advocate of OP2 to Sh. M.S.Sethi, Advocate for the complainant. However, the complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion, from which, it could be presumed that fire took place in the refrigerator in question due to any short circuit or any manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint. Though, it was the legal obligation on the part of the complainant to prove his plea and allegations levelled against the Ops by adducing cogent and convincing evidence on record. On the other hand, OP1 has furnished affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Dharminder Kumar, its Service Engineer, who has deposed that he was working as service engineer with LG Electronics at the authorized service center of the company at Ludhiana. He had visited the premises of the complainant regarding the complaint of the refrigerator. The complainant had lodged the complaint regarding fire in the refrigerator and on inspection by him, it was found that fire had taken place from some external source and not from any internal circuits of the refrigerator. The refrigerator was working and all the internal circuits were intact and were not at all burnt. Further, this witness has proved his report as Ex.R7, vide which, he has reported that he inspected the refrigerator and submitted under the head of “Cause Analysis” that on background and fire pattern analysis, it was found that refrigerator burnt from front right hand bottom side door and cabinet and all electrical parts not burnt, refrigerator working ok and fire not from product and no electrical part/source of fire on the front bottom side of refrigerator (burnt location), can burnt only through external fire. Further, this witness has placed on record photographs Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 showing the damaged refrigerator in question and premises where the same was lying in a damaged condition. Photograph Ex.R3 depicts the true picture of the circuits/plugs which appears to be intact. Had there been any short circuits, the circuits/plugs must have been damaged. So, report of the service engineer of OP Ex.R7 appears to be trust worthy and the same can be relied upon. So, there does not appear to be any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

12.              In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence on record. Hence, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant being devoid of any merit. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

(Priti Malhotra)                       (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L. Ahuja)

Member                                     Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum

on 11/08/2014

GurpreetSharma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Sai trading Co. vs. LG Electronics

 

11.08.2014

 

Present:       Sh. M.S.Sethi, Adv, for complainants.

                   Shri Govind Puri, Adv, for OP1.

                   Sh.Nitin Jain, Adv. for OP2.

 

Written arguments not filed. Arguments have been heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due completion.

 

    (Priti Malhotra)                             (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

     Member                              Member                        President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:11.08.2014