Filed on :17.06.2015

Disposed on.22.11.2016

BEFORE THE BANGALORE URBAN II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560027

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1152/2015

PRESENT: 

KUM. T. SHOBHADEVI, M.A., LL.B.,           …. PRESIDENT

SRI  BALAKRISHNA.V.MASALI B.A., LL.B., …. MEMBER

SMT V.ANURADHA B.A., LL.B.,                   ….  MEMBER

V/S

ORDER

BY SRI  BALAKRISHNA.V.MASALI, MEMBER

     This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

     2.      The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under;

     The complainant purchased a LG Dishwasher on 15^th April 2012, from the OP for Rs.36,700/- which was under warranty of two years till 14^th April 2014.  On 29^th March 2014 OP repaired the Dishwasher machine by replacing the salt tank.  Since then, the machine started looking or finding very frequently for some or the other reasons connected to leakage.  The complainant registered the complaint to the OP for replace the machine as it was damaged internally during warranty by the LG company service department.  After repair the complainant start running the machine and the machine starts leaking like flood.  The original problem was salt indicator light not working.  Now the machine has chronic problem of leakage even after repair of seven days in the service station. This proves machine has a permanent damage and even after seven days in their workshop, the machine still leaks.  On 11^th May 2014 the complainant informed about to the OP about the problem, the OP send a technician and found the machine is leaking after that the complainant asked to the OP for replacing the machine.  Wherefore the complainant prayed for replacement of the LG Dish washer.  Hence the complaint.

3.      After admitting the complaint, issued notice to the OPs.  The OPs appeared through their counsel and filed defence version stating that it is true that the LG Dishwasher was under warranty period as stated in the complaint and other averments that the said dishwasher with a minor problem that a “Salt indicator light” was not working and service center of these OPs have damaged the machine, so badly that it kept on leaking even after multiple repair from their own service center and the complainant requested several times and further extended warranty of atleast 1 or 2 years.  When it was failing repeatedly, but the OP company has never agreed that an only gave six months is denied as false.  It is submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the said machine and due to the misuse of the said machine, there was a problem occurred and the same was after lapse of two years, the said problem was found in the said machine and the same was rectified by the OPs under the warranty.  It is submitted that the said dish washer was found fault at the end of warranty period and the same was rectified by giving six month additional warranty for the same as a good will gesture.  Even these OPs have provided best service to the complainant.  The complainant was unnecessarily mailed and demanded for replacement and further extension of warranty.  As per company policy, the OPs have provided the service to the complainant and they have explained the same to the complainant.  it is submitted that after eight months of last service, the complainant has complained to the OPs regarding extremely high noise and the OPs have found there was slow leakage every time to the motor which is below the machine.  So even though the major leakage was repaired, there was apparently slow leakage to the motor over the last eight months and the machine fails is specifically denied as false.  Further it is submitted that the said noise in the said machine was occurred due to misuse of the machine by the complainant, even though the service persons have explained to the complainant.  It is respectfully submits that the entire averments of the complaint, the complainant is trying to make unlawful gain from the hands of the OPs, even though, there was no manufacturing defect and deficiency of service.  Therefore, the Hon’ble Forum may kindly be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The complainant and OPs have filed their affidavit evidence.  Heard the arguments of both side.

5.      Now the points that arise for consideration are

1. Whether the complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the opposite parties?
2. If so, what relief the complainant is entitled?

6.      Our findings on the above points are;

POINT NO. 1       -        In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2        -        As per the final order for the following

7.     POINT NO. 1 :

Looking into the facts, the complainant purchased a L.G.Dish washer on 15^th April 2012 from the OPs for Rs.36,700/-, which was under warranty of two years till 14^th April 2014.  The complainant has paid Rs.36,700/- as a cost of machine.  The bill was produced by the complainant.  The complainant stated in his complaint that the performance of the above L.G. Dish washer is not satisfactory.  The machine starts leaking heavily and flooding the houses.  In this regard the complainant registered the complaint to the OPs.  Complainant ID RNA No.140331013721 and asked the replacement of the machine as it was damaged internally during warranty by the L.G. company.  The OPs didn’t gave replacement, but warns the complainant that the warranty is expired.  As per “Annexure 7” the OP replied in email dated 02.05.2014, as discussed if the problem reoccurs within 90 days, the product will be serviced under warranty.  Further the OPs extended six months warranty period by their email dated 09.06.2014 as per Annexure 12.  The OP1, L.G. Company service division, delivers the machine after third repair.  There was no immediate leakage, but the “salt indicator high” was still not working by this time almost 80 days was over from the period of six months warranty.  The OPs have agreed to repair the machine with free of cost, but the complainant completely disagree with this offer as their track record says the machine will again fail.  Inspite of request and demand made by the complainant, the OPs have not complied the defects. Thereby it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence point No. 1 is held in the Affirmative.

8.  POINT NO.2:- In view of the finding on Point No.1, we proceed to pass the following;

          The Complaint is Allowed in part.

The OPs are directed to replace the L.G.Dish washer with a new brand one to the complainant.

The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost of the litigation to the complainant.

The OPs are directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of this order.

          Send copy of the order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her/him and corrected and then pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of NOVEMBER 2016)

MEMBER                       MEMBER                    PRESIDENT