IN THECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
CC No. 378/12
Saturday the 29th day of November, 2014
Petitioner : Thomas Kuzhivelil,
Kuzhivelil House,
Anikad East PO,
Chengalam Village,
Kottayam Dist.
Pin 686 503.
(Adv.R.Ajith)
Vs
Opposite parties : L.G.Electronics India Pvt.Ltd
Vasudeva Buildings, T.D.Road,
Ernakulam-682011(Rptd by its
Customer Service Manager)
(Adv.Nithin Sunny Alex & Biju Hariharan)
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 20/12/2012 is as follows:
He had purchased an L.G Refrigerator with model No.GL 265TMG4 on
03-03-2009 for an amount of Rs.15,900/-. To keep the product in good working condition the complainant entered into an annual maintenance contract on
03-03-2010 with end dated 02-03-2014 by making payment of Rs.3,309/- to the opposite party as per the scheme “LG Happy Living Plan” announced by the opposite party. In July 2012, the complainant observed that, the refrigerator compartment was having low cooling and the electricity consumption of the fridge is on high side. Hence the complainant made a call to the helpline number 1800 180 4999 as required in service contract. The service person made 3 visits to the complainant and tried to repair the refrigerator, but could not succeed. Finally the service person informed the complainant that there is a gap between the gasket and the cabinet of the refrigerator. He was helpless to repair the same since the company is not supplying new gasket now a days for repairing the refrigerator. Without replacing the gasket, the door will not close properly and the problem is continuing. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The service officials of the opposite party had promptly attended the complainant on that day itself. On inspection it was found that the gasket of the refrigerator was worn out and as a result of the same the door could not be closed firmly. But unfortunately as the gasket which suits the said refrigerator was not available with this opposite party or in the market, the complaint could not be rectified completely. Though the defect was rectified applying alternative means the complainant was not satisfied. Though based on the report from the service centre and also to maintain a customer friendly relationship the opposite party was ready to replace the refrigerator after deducting the depreciation, the complainant was not amenable for paying the deprecation. The product was purchased on 3-3-09 and he has used it for well over 4 years before the problem arose and hence in the circumstances, it is only just and proper that the depreciation is levied when a new machine is supplied. The opposite party is still ready to refund the price of the product after deducting the depreciation. There was no unfair trade practice or any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A5.
Heard both sides. The complainant filed argument note. We have gone through the complaint, version documents and evidence. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had not properly repaired the defective refrigerator even after repeated demands. According to the complainant the door of the refrigerator had not closed properly due to the gasket was not suitable to the refrigerator. The opposite party had taken a contention that they are ready and willing to replace the refrigerator or refund the price after deducting the depreciation. According to the opposite party the problem of the refrigerator was due to the non availability of the suitable gasket to this refrigerator. The main contention of the opposite party is that the suitable gasket of the refrigerator was not available. From the available documents any evidences it can be seen that the defect of the refrigerator was not rectified properly by the opposite party.
In the version of the opposite party they are admitted that the inability of rectifying the refrigerator due to the non-availability of the suitable gasket. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. We direct the opposite party to rectify the refrigerator with perfect working condition as free of costs. If it is not possible to rectify the defects of refrigerator, the opposite party to refund the price of the refrigerator (ie 15,900/-) to the complainant. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of these proceedings.
The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of November, 2014.
Hon’ble Mr K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of complainant.
Ext.A1-photocopy of the Happy Living Plan contract document issued by OP
bearing No.ID NOC 1021724637
Ext.A2-copy of lawyer’s notice dtd 13-9-12
Ext.A3-postal receipt
Ext.A4-copy of letter dtd 20-10-12
Ext.A5-Letter dtd 13-6-14 issued byPublic Information Officer,
KSEB, Pallikkathodu
Documents of OP
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
S/3cs
