DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2019
Date of institution: 21.01.2019
Date of decision : 15.04.2019
Gaurav Gupta aged about 30 years son of Shri Vipan Kumar, resident of House No.263, Preet Colony, Gali No.3, New Sabji Mandi, Zirakpur.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A Wing (3rd Floor) D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi 110017.
2. Big Bazar, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
3. Speedyrep Technomechanic Services Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.110, Near Shiv Mandir, Furniture Market, Baltana, Zirakpur.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Samandeep Singh Tiwana, cl. for the complainant.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased one refrigerator for an amount of Rs.62,250/- on 31.03.2013 from OP No.2. Few months after this purchase i.e. on 07.07.2013, the refrigerator started causing cooling problem. Service station of OP No.1 temporarily repaired the refrigerator in guarantee period. Again on 15.07.2014 cooling problem erupted and complainant got the refrigerator repaired from company after paying Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. Same problem again erupted on 28.03.2016, 22.07.2017 and 12.09.2018. On each of these three occasions, complainant paid Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- each for repair of the refrigerator. On 12.09.2018, company service man declared as if there is inbuilt problem due to manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. Registered legal notice dated 28.08.2018 was sent, but despite that none turned up and that is why this complaint. This complaint filed by claiming that the refrigerator has full warranty for one year and the compressor has warranty of 10 years.
2. Arguments for admission purposes heard and records gone through.
3. Complaint is supported by unattested affidavit. That affidavit is not self attested even so that affidavit has no legal efficacy and as such the same cannot be taken into consideration.
4. Copy of invoice Ex.C-3 (self attested) is produced on record to show as if the refrigerator was purchased for Rs.62,250/- from OP No.2 on 31.03.2013. On this delivery challan Ex.C-3 itself it is endorsed that standard warranty for the product to be provided through authorised service centre only. In view of this endorsement on the challan, it is obvious that responsibility of OP No.2 the seller does not remain for providing services necessitated due to faults arising out of use of the refrigerator. Being so, complaint against OP No.2, the seller certainly is not maintainable. Copy of complaint regarding defects on 07.07.2013 or the job sheet with respect to the same is not produced on record. However, copies of job sheet dated 13.09.2018 alongwith receipt of paid amount of Rs.300/- Ex.C-2 are produced on record to show as if this complaint was lodged. No other record or the job sheet has been produced and as such virtually no material produced on record to show that defects erupted in cooling on 07.07.2013 ; 15.07.2014; 28.03.2016 and 22.07.2017 (as alleged in the complaint).
5. Job sheet Ex.C-4 shows as if the technician who visited complainant on 13.09.2018 found internal leakage. In the job sheet itself, it is mentioned that this was the only visit and repair subject to charges. So this job sheet produced by complainant itself shows as if only one visit made by the technician/service engineer of OP No.1 on 13.09.2018 and he offered to render services on charges basis. Complainant claims to have paid Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- on each of visits of technician on 15.07.2014; 28.03.2016 and 22.07.2017, but no receipt of such charges or copies of job sheets in that respect has been produced on record. It is the case of complainant himself put forth through Para No.9 of the complaint that full warranty of the refrigerator was for period of one year and if that be the position, then warranty was to expire on 30.03.2014 because purchase of the refrigerator was made on 31.03.2013. So non production of record of the job sheets prior to 13.09.2018 shows that defects might not have erupted prior to 13.09.2018, and that is why in job sheet Ex.C-4 mention made regarding the only visit in technician’s remarks column. Column regarding second, third and fourth visits are left blank in job sheet Ex.C-4 and the same also shows as if earlier the service request or request for removal of defects was not submitted by complainant. As defect occurred after five years and five months of purchase of the refrigerator and as such after expiry of warranty period of one year, complainant not entitled for replacement of the refrigerator or getting the same repaired without charges. Even complainant not entitled for refund of price amount of Rs.62,250/-. As the refrigerator worked well for 5 years and 5 months after purchase, as referred above, and as such question of manufacturing defect does not arise. So story regarding inbuilt manufacturing defect declared by company service man on 12.09.2018 is not believable, more so when mention of same not incorporated in the produced job sheet dated 13.09.2014 (Ex.C-4). So, complaint certainly is filed beyond period of limitation because limitation for filing complaint is two years from the accrual of cause of action.
6. Complaint can be filed within two years after expiry of warranty period of one year as per case of Babual Kumhar Vs. Force Motors Ltd. through Manager & Others 2015(1) CLT 395 (Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). As warranty period in this case expired on 30.03.2014, but this complaint filed on 21.01.2019 i.e. much after expiry of limitation period of two years after expiry of warranty period of one year and as such certainly complaint is barred by limitation.
7. No warranty card produced to show that warranty of the compressor is for 10 years. Even no report of expert produced to show that cooling problem complained of was due to defects in the compressor. Being so, complainant is unable to project as if the cooling problem erupted due to defective compressor or due to fault in the compressor. As the complaint filed after expiry of warranty period of one year on 30.03.2014, could have been filed by 30.03.2016, but the same is not done and as such complaint merits dismissal being barred by limitation at the stage of admission itself, more so when the allegations leveled in the complaint regarding manufacturing defect not made out, as discussed in detail above and also because report of expert not produced.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
April 15, 2019
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
