DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 377/2017

Sh. Deepak Trehan

R/o Flat No.4, A-103A, Lange No.6,

Paryavaran Complex, IGNOU Road,

New Delhi-110030                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.       LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

          A-Wing (Third Floor), D-3,

          District Centre, Saket,

          New Delhi-110017

2.       M/ s RPG Electrade Pvt. Ltd.

          D-77, Malviya Nagar,

          New Delhi-110017                                        ….Opposite Parties

                                                Date of Institution            :         27.10.17         Date of Order        :         05.12.19

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. Briefly put Deepak Trehan, purchased an LG Fully Automatic Washing Machine from LG Showroom M/s RPG Electrade Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.2) which was manufactured by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.1). It is averred that the salesman of OP No.2 made tall promises regarding the features of the washing machine. Being impressed by his tall promises the complainant purchased the said washing machine however after using the machine the complainant realized that the washing machine had multiple problems.
   1. It is averred that the complainant’s semi automatic machine dried clothes far better than the newly purchased machine. The complainant has to use the semi auto machine to extract excess water in the dried clothes from the fully automatic machine every time after washing. It is next averred by the complainant that the auto water level selection is always lower than the load of the clothes. The complainant had to manually adjust the water level as per the loads of clothes otherwise the clothes were not washed properly. Another grievance of complainant is that the water gets accumulated in the softener box. The complainant is disappointed with the heater and steam functions as they were not working properly.
   2. It is further submitted that the complainant though purchased the washing machine on 28.11.16 but it was opened and demo was given by one of the representative of OP No.2 in the second week of December, 2016. Even during the demo the complainant states that the LG’s service engineer who came to give the demo was not well aware about the new features of this model.  The complainant after using the washing machine faced number of problems therefore filed the complaint on the LG Customer Care Toll Free Number. LG’s service engineer again visited the complainant but failed to solve his problems. Thereafter, the complainant filed number of complaints and wrote various emails to the service centre but problems with the washing machine could not be. Hence the present complaint with the prayer to refund Rs.35,500/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. to the complainant, further to award Rs.25,000/- as damages to the complainant for providing deficient services and causing mental agony to the complainant and Rs.5000/- towards litigation costs.
2. OP No.1 chose to contest the complaint and filed its written statement stating inter-alia that the complainant purchased the washing machine on 28.11.2016 and enjoyed the same for a period of 11 months. It is submitted that the product in question was examined by the service engineer of OP No.1 and no defect of any kind was found. The machine was found in perfect condition. It is next submitted that at the time of purchase of the machine, the complainant  was duly apprised of its specifications and functions of the product.
   1. It is next submitted that OP No.1 for the purpose of settlement offered the complainant for the replacement of the product with other product of the same price however the complainant  is not ready for settlement but only claiming refund of money with interest. It is next submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are false as there are no technical/manufacturing defects in the washing machine. The defects as alleged in the washing machine relate to the inappropriate usage of the product such as load on fuzzy wash program and two rinses selected, loading extra clothes between the washing program whilst load is to be put only once at the starting time, also the complainant wants better wash quality at low water level which is not possible. OP further submits that the washing machine is not suffering from any of the alleged faults hence it is prayed that the present complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit. Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Ajayanji, AR  is filed on behalf of OP No.1.
4. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the OP No.1.
5. Oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1 are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
6. Admittedly, the complainant  purchased LG fully automatic washing machine on 18.11.2016 from OP No.1.  The complainant  alleged that he was misguided by the representative of OP No.2 and the complainant since the beginning faced following problems with the machine:

It failed to dry clothes, there was wrong auto water selection, water would get accumulated in the softener box, the heater and steam functions were not working properly, the spin/rotation (RPM) was very poor and there was no mechanism wherein the lint of clothes could be separated.

7. It is noticed that the complainant regarding the problems complained to OP No.1 on 26^th Dec, 28^th Dec, 16^th Jan, 18^th Jan, 23th Jan, 4^th Feb and thereafter filed various complaints till 8^th March, 2017. OP No.1 alongwith its written statement has filed computerized job sheets till 5^th Feb. 2017 which are corresponding with the dates when the complaints were made. Evidently, the complaints were attended upon by the OP-1.
8. Going through the mail on page-24, appended with the complaint it is observed that various service engineers/representatives  have visited the complainant’s house to resolve the issue. In the job sheet dated 28.12.16 it is noted that technically no defect was found by the engineer and the set was found to be okay. Further in the job sheet i.e. 16.01.17 it is mentioned that the functions/features were not clear to the customer which were explained. Again on 19.01.17 the customer was explained the functions and on 05.02.17 another service engineer reported that the set was found to be okay but the customer wants replacement. Looking at the nature of complaints, we make an observation that the problems were more due to the inappropriate usage of the product rather than any manufacturing defect. Even if for the sake of arguments, we ignore the computer prints of the job sheets annexed by OP with their written statement, the complainant has failed to establish or has not provided any concrete evidence which would lead us to believe that the washing machine had an inherent manufacturing defect. The bald averments made by the complainant do not cut any ice with the Forum.
9.  OP No.1 on receiving the complaints immediately attended the complainant, therefore we also do not find any deficiency of service as regards OP No.1.  In view of discussion above, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.  

Announced on 05.12.2019.