Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/295/2018

R.Arumugam - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd & Others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Yurandrakumar

15 Jun 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :28.03.2011           Date of disposal            :21.07.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.295/2018

 

DATED THURSDAY THE 21^th  DAY JULY OF 2022

R.Arumugam,

#:5/A Flat #:14, 2^nd floor,

Asthalakshmi Nagar, 8^th street,

Velachery, Chennai-43

                                                                                      .…..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

1).     Branch Manager

          LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd.,

          AA-11 2^nd Avenue Fatima Tower,

          Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40

 

2).     Manager Rathna stores,

          15, Ranganathan street,

          T.nagar, Chennai-17

                                                                                      …..Opposite Parties

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                           : M/s.

 

Counsel for 1^st  opposite party                     : M/s. Mothilal, Goda & kalliat

 

Counsel for 2^nd   opposite party                    : Ex-parte

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to  take back the defective LG refrigerator 245FADG5 Crimson Modern unit sr#:004LPFF007140 repay the cost of refrigerator Rs.13,800/- paid on 25.05.2010 with interest @ 24% till repayment and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency of service of the opposite party for having manufactured and sold a defective LG refrigerator and for the gross failure in doing in effective repairs and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for the resultant mental agony and pain caused by such deficiency of service and to pay Rs.50,000/- for the unfair trade practice and to pay Rs.15,000/- as costs of this complaint.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 152/2011.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.295/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant stated that on 25.05.2010 complainant purchased from the 2^nd opposite party a LG refrigerator 245FADG5 Crimson Modern unit sr#:004LPFF007140 vide cash bill #:9141 dt:25.05.2010 manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant has paid Rs.13,800/- cost for this refrigerator.  The fridge carried a warranty of 12 months and compressor carried a warranty of 5 years from the date of installation. The LG refrigerator after delivery was installed by the opposite parties.  A week later a complaint was given for no cooling. The opposite parties personnel inspected and found gas leak in the compressor, refilled gas, assured that problem will not recur. The compressor gas leakage continued. On 20.12.2010 after one such gas refill the fridge went dead and complainant called opposite party’s toll free number.  On 21.12.2010 One senthil visit and inspected the fridge, thereafter repairs of gas refill were carried out on 23.12.2010. On 29.12.2010 same problem repeated itself and complaint was given. On 31.12.2010 by one Senthil’s visit who inspected informed the compressor problem needs repair, assured repairs on 04.01.2011. Sadly the much promised repair of compressor remains unkept till date. Complainant to remind the opposite parties by notice dated:12.01.2011. The opposite parties had failed to do repairs or replace the defective fridge. The complainant prays to refund the entire refrigerator amount of Rs.13,800/-. Hence the complaint.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party denies all the allegations stated by the complainant except those, which are specifically admitted thereon. The opposite party submitted that the complainant has not filed any document in proof of the fact that the fridge purchased by the complainant was defective. The representative of the 1^st opposite party it was noticed that there was voltage fluctuations and that the stabilizer purchased by the complainant which is not manufactured by the opposite party was defective. It is denied that any problem with any gas leakage or any compressor was detected or any repairs with regard to the same were assured. The 1^st opposite party failed to repair or replace the defective fridge/refrigerator since there was no defect in the Fridge. The allegations of promise to do so is denied that the complainant’s averments of having taken leave from office as a result of any failure to carry out repair or any assurance by the 1^st opposite party is denied.  It is denied that the refrigerator manufactured by the 1^st opposite party suffers any inherent manufacturing defect. Further denied that the 1^st opposite party neglected to attend any complaint given by the complainant. Further denied that the complainant purchased the fridge after pledging valuable jewels and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party have not sold a defective fridge or guilty of any deficiency of service.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

Both side arguments heard. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked on his side and written arguments.  The 1^st  opposite party filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked on the opposite party side and written arguments.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

                             The complainant and 1^st opposite have filed their written arguments, perused their records namely complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents. The 2^nd opposite party remaind Ex-parte. The oral argument of complainant also heard.  According to complainant he has purchased one LG refrigerator 245FADG5 Crimson Modern unit sr#:004LPFF007140 vide cash bill #:9141 dt:25.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.13,800/- from  2^nd opposite party which is marked as Ex.A1.  The refrigerator carries a warranty of 12 months and compressor carries a warranty of 5 years from the date of installation and the warranty is marked as Ex.A2.  One week after installation a complaint was given by complainant for no cooling and the 1^st opposite party service personnel visited and found gas leak in the compressor and refilled the gas.  However, the gas leak problem continued and the 1^st opposite party service personnel refilled based on the complaints given  by the complainant.  On 20.12.2010 after gas refilling the fridge went dead and the complainant called opposite parties toll free number, and one Mr. Senthil from the 1^st opposite party inspected the refrigerator and filled gas on 23.12.2010.  Again, on 29.12.2010 the same problem repeated, a complaint was given and also registered but no response from 1^st opposite party.  After several calls, on 31.12.2010 again Mr.Senthil visited and informed that the compressor needs repair and assured the repair on or before 04.01.2011 but till date no repair was carried out.  Finally the complainant has issued notices to 1^st and 2^nd opposite party on 12.01.2011 the same was received by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on 14.01.2011 which is marked as Ex.A3.  The Complainant has not received any response for the notices issued. The complainant purchased the fridge by pledging jewels and the evidence of pledging jewels is marked as Ex.A4. The unresponsive acts of opposite party made the complainant to suffer mental agony and pain.

          The 1^st opposite party in the written version denies all the averment made in the complaint except specifically admitted herein. The 1^st opposite party denies the fridge supplied was defective and also denies that there was no cooling with in a week of purchase and the fridge went on dead 20.12.2010.  The 1^st opposite party states that during the visit of their representative to complainant, it was noticed that there was voltage fluctuation and the stabilizer purchased by the complainant was  defective which was not manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  It is further denied that there was no gas leakage or any repair in the fridge.  The 1^st opposite party denied that they failed to repair or replace the defective fridge since there was no defect in the fridge.         

          There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased fridge  from the 2^nd  opposite party and which was manufactured by 1^st opposite party.  The complainant lodged a complaint with 1^st opposite party for cooling problems and 1^st opposite party service personnel attended the problem as and when they were informed.  According to the complainant there was gas leakage and it was refilled on 20.12.2010 and again there was gas leakage and gas was refilled on 23.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 but even after that the same problem continued and according to the complainant it was informed to the opposite parties and one Mr.Senthil inspected and stated that compressor needs repair but he has not done repair as assured by him till this date inspite of several remainders.  In the written version of the 1^st opposite party it is admitted that representative of the 1^st opposite party inspected the fridge in December 2010 and found voltage fluctuation in the defective stabilizer purchased by the complainant which will go to show that even during the warranty period within few months after purchase the fridge was not working property and there was no cooling due to the manufacturing defects in the refrigerator.  The act of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in not attending and not rectifying the defect inspite of legal notice which is marked as Ex.A3 and non issue of reply Ex.A3 will prove the fact that the opposite parties 1 and 2 has committed deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  Due to the defective nature of the fridge and no cooling effect in the fridge within the few months of purchase would have resulted in the mental agony and hardship to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The 1^st opposite party as a manufacturer of the refrigerator and the 2^nd opposite party as a seller of the same and both are responsible for the non functioning of the refrigerator due to manufacturing defects and also in not attending the repair and service inspite of several request and remainder sent by the complainant. Hence it is found that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party committed deficiency in service in not attending the defects and not replacing the defective parts. Point no 1 answered accordingly.

7. Point. No.2:-

                  Based on findings given in the Point.No.1 there is deficiency of service on the part of  Opposite parties 1 and 2 and the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 13,800/- towards the cost of Refrigerator and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.13,800/-  towards the cost of Refrigerator and also pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.  The above said amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21^th   day of  July 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	25.05.2010	Cash bill
Ex.A2		Warranty card
Ex.A3	12.01.2011	Notice with ack due
Ex.A4		Pledge details.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                                -NIL-

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT