Haryana

Kurukshetra

97/2016

Rajni - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

Jasbir Singh

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no. 97/16.

Date of instt. 5.4.16. 

                                             Date of Decision: 8.1.18.

 

Rajni wife of Pawan Kumar, resident of House No.2086, Sector-7, Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. M/s Rajesh Enterprises, SCO 37, Sector-10, Near New Bus Stand, Opposite Divine City, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra, through its Partner/Proprietor.
2. Unique Solutions, 783/5 Jyoti Nagar, Behind Grace Palace, Kurukshetra, through its authorized signatory.
3. LG Electronics India Private Limited, A-27, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathrua Road, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member                             Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

       

Present:         Sh.  Jasbir Singh, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. for Ops No.2&3.

 OP No.1 ex parte.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rajni against M/s Rajesh Enterprises and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased washing machine from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.15,500/- vide bill No.322 dated 5.12.2013 and paid the price in cash. At the time of purchase of Machine the OPs assured that the said machine is very good quality and assured they will provide the best services without any delay. The above said washing machine is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and consequently, the washing machine started to create washing problem, tore the clothes and could not work properly. The complainant approached Op No.1 and also made a complaint bearing No.RNA140405008670 dated 5.4.2014 in this regard. The Mechanic of Op No.3 visited the house of complainant and inspected the washing machine and told that the machine is defective by gear box tool of washing portion and assured that the defective part will be replaced with new one by getting the same from the company as the same is not available in the company at that time. After waiting sufficiently period, when the Ops failed to do so, the complainant again approached the Ops to rectify the fault or to replace the defective washing machine but the Ops lingered the matter for long period and lastly the OP No.2 rectified the fault by replacing a part of washing machine and illegally charged a sum of Rs.4440/- on the pretext that the machine is out of warranty period. It is also told by OP No.2 that if the complainant wants to get the warranty of one year about the said part, then the old part would be left with him and OP No.2 will replace the same from the company on the basis of complaint made by the complainant. So, it is clear that the machine is having manufacturing defect but the Ops have intentionally and malafidely did not replace the same earlier. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.4,440/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.

3.            OP No.1 has failed to come present and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 26.9.2016.

4.             Upon notice, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and contested the contested the complaint by filing the written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had lodged her complaint regarding the defect in the washing machine on 12.2.2016 after the expiry of two years warranty, so she had been rightly charged the amount of Rs.4400/- and the allegations of the complainant that the washing machine is having manufacturing defect is totally baseless and false. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

5.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.            It is an admitted case of the complainant that she got repaired the unit in question from the Ops for which the Ops charged the amount of Rs.4440/- from her. When admittedly, the unit in question was got repaired by the complainant and the Ops charged the amount of Rs.4440/- from her, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Ops. So, in these circumstances, the complaint is having no merit.

8.               So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complaint is without any merit and as such, the complaint is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

                 Copy of this order; be communicated to the parties.

Announced:    

Dt.8.1.2018                                         (G.C.Garg)

                                                          President

District Consumer Disputes                           Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra

 

 

           (Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)                 (Viraj Pahil)

                          Member                           Member