DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 290
Instituted on: 10.07.2018
Decided on: 14.11.2018
Hardeep Singh son of Gopal Singh resident of Chehlan Patti, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. LG Electronics India Private Limited Plot No.15, Surajpura Kasna Road, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida (UP) through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Shree Ganesh Traders, Shop No.77, New Grain Market, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Proprietor.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri G.P.Sharma Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1 : Shri Kuldeep Jain Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2 : Exparte
Quorum
Inderjeet Kaur, Presiding Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER: InderjeetKaur/Vinod Kumar Gulati,Members
1. Hardeep Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased LG refrigerator from OP no.2 for an amount of Rs.14500/- under bill number 219 dated 30.06.2017. The Op no.2 had given full warranty of one year and warranty of compression of 10 years against any defect arises within warranty period. Further, that the refrigerator in question having defective body and have cracks all over it and also have cooling problem and not working properly the complainant approached the OP no.2 for removing the said defect of the refrigerator. That after seeing the said defect, the OP no.2 told the complainant to approach authorized service centre of LG refrigerator i.e OP no.1 on 27.01.2018 for the repair of refrigerator on toll free number who registered the complaint dated 27.01.2018. Then the complainant requested the OPs so many times but the OPs flatly refused to repair the defective refrigerator inspite of that the refrigerator was well within the warranty period. After that the OP no.1 told that a defect is not curable/ repairable, then the complainant told the OP no.1 that the refrigerator in question well within the warranty period and the complainant requested the OP no.1 to replace the refrigerator with new one but the OP no.1 told the complainant that they would not replace the defective refrigerator. It is pertinent to mention here that now in these hot days all the food products are deteriorated without the refrigerator and the complainant is facing hardship in the hands of the OPs and that by not replacing the refrigerator, which is well within the warranty period, the complainant is suffering a lot of harassment and mental agony due to act and conduct of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to replace the defective refrigerator with new one and to refund the purchase price of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.14500/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The record shows that Ops were proceeded exparte on 24.08.2018 but Shri Kuldeep Jain, Advocate had appeared on 12.09.2018 when the case was at the stage of arguments.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed evidence.
4. We have perused the entire documents placed on the file by the complainant and heard the arguments of the complainant. We find that that the complainant purchased LG refrigerator from OP no.2 for an amount of Rs.14500/- under bill number 219 dated 30.06.2017 and the Op no.2 had given full warranty of one year and 10 years warranty of compressor which is evident from copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2. The complainant's case is that after seeing the defects in the said refrigerator he approached the service centre of OP no.1. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP no.1 on 27.01.2018 for the repair of refrigerator on toll free number who registered the complaint dated 27.01.2018. Then the complainant requested the OPs so many times but the OPs flatly refused to repair the defective refrigerator inspite of that the refrigerator was well within the warranty period. In support of his case the complainant has produced on record expert report of Randhir Singh, expert who opined that there is manufacturing defect in the body of the refrigerator as many cracks were developed on the body of thee same and it has also not working properly as there is manufacturing defect in its parts and due to that reason the said refrigerator is not working properly. Moreover, the said problem is not repairable. The OPs have not filed any reply nor produced any evidence to contest the case of the complainant. So, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. Further, the learned counsel for the OPs during arguments could not bring any evidence on the record to rebut the allegations of the complainant.
5. In view of the facts stated above, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one of same model. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- being compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
6. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced.
November 14,2018
( Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Inderjeet Kaur)
Member Presiding Member
