Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/615/2015

Mrs. Usha Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kulwant Singh Jassal Adv.

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	615/2015
Date of Institution	:	26.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	03/03/2016

 

                                               

                                                         

 

Mrs.Usha Devi wife of Sh.Raj Jacob r/o H.No.1067, Sector 24-B, Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.51, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India-201306.

 

2.      M/s Modern Sales, LG Dealer, SCO 1116, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Kulwant Singh Jassal, Adv. for the complainant

                   Sh.Aditya Grover, Adv. for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased a washing machine (WM 1496 ADP 24LG) from OP No.2 for Rs.47,000/- vide invoice dated 16.10.2014, Annexure C-1.  It has been averred that the said machine was suffering from the following defects:

1. It creates loud and unusual noise every time, it operates.
2. Door error occurs at frequent intervals.
3. Excessive vibration in the machine occurs during spinning alongwith knocking sound.
4. Water pipe fitting improper since starting due to which leakage occurs.

                   It has been averred that he made several complaints to the OPs but they failed to make single effort to remove the defects in the machine or to replace the same despite being covered under guarantee.  According to the complainant, the Service Engineers of the OPs checked the machine in routine but they failed to remove the defect.  It has further been averred that on 7.08.2015 the Service Engineer of the OPs without rectifying the defect in the machine pressurized him to sign the report that he was satisfied with the work and that there is no defect in the machine. According to the complainant, he made a complaint to the police control no. 100 and PCR vehicle reached his premises and then a compromise was arrived between them. Finally, he got served a legal notice, Annexure C-4 upon the OPs requiring them to replace the machine in question with a new one or to refund its price with interest but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.           Upon notice, the Opposite Parties filed their written statement admitting the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been pleaded that machine in question has been working perfectly upto the mark as per the standards of OP No.1-Company and the complainant had been unnecessarily registering false and frivolous complaints with the OPs that the machine creates heavy noise when put to use etc.  It has further been pleaded that the time and again the service engineers of the OP had been visiting the complainant as and when called for and each time, after duly inspecting the product in question, found that the same is working perfectly and the noise level of the product is normal which accordingly has been duly explained to the complainant numerous times.  It has further pleaded that during one of the visits by the service engineer of the OP-Company, the complainant even called the police to pressurize him (Mr.Prateek Nagar) to give favorable report.  However, the police did not intervene in the matter.  It has been pleaded that since there is no problem in the machine, there is no question of replacement/refund of price of the machine in question. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           The main grouse of the complainant is that the machine is not working properly and is giving unusual noise, excessive vibration during spinning alongwith knocking sound and door error occurs at frequent intervals and the OPs have failed to rectify the same despite his repeated requests and as such, he is entitled for its replacement or in the alternative refund of its price.
6.           On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the machine is working perfectly as per the standard set by the OP-Company and the noise level of the product is normal. According to the OPs, as and when the complainant called upon them, the engineer of the company attended the call in order to redress the grievance, if any.  Since, there is no problem in the machine, hence there is no question/need for replacement/replace of the product in question and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7.           The callwise status of the complaints made by the complainant with the OPs and job sheets prepared by the Service Engineer (s) with regard to the machine in question is tabulated as under:-

S. No	Complaint No.	Date	Report/Remarks of the Engineer	Exhibit No.
1	RNA141017062259	15.10.2014	washing machine working alright	R-1
2.	RNA141106067192	16.10.2014	Set found Ok	R-2
3	RNA150414053820	14.04.2015	Washing machine working ok, No problem found in machine.	R-3
4	RNA150418067828	18.04.2015	Normal sound in washing machine as already senior engineer visited.	R-4
5.	RNA150418092942	18.04.2015	Duplicate call against RNA150418067828 4	R-5
6	RNA150419097977	19.04.2015	Set working ok.	R-6
7	RNA150419012207	19.04.2015	Duplicate call ID RNA150419097977	R-7
8	RNA150811072423	11.08.2015	Call cancelled as during one of the visits, the customer had even detained the service engineer Mr. Prateek Nagar and threatened him of dire consequences if engineer doesn’t prepare a favorable report enabling him to get replacement from the company.	R-8

 

                   It is evident from the job sheets and the remarks made by the Service Engineers of the OPs from time to time that the machine is working perfectly and no defect as alleged in the complaint was ever found in the machine on its checking.  It is also evident from the job sheets that no part of the machine in question has ever been changed by the Service Engineer on any of the occasion. The complainant has sought the replacement/refund of the machine without placing on record any cogent and authentic documentary evidence in the form of expert report to prove that the machine in question is suffering from any inherent/manufacturing defect. On the other hand, Sh.Naresh Kumar, Regional Service Manager of the OP-Company has specifically deposed in his affidavit that on inspection of the machine time and again by the Service Engineers, it was found that the machine was working perfectly and the noise level of the machine was normal, as per the technical standard set by the OP-Company.  Whereas the complainant has failed to place on record any reliable and convincing evidence that the machine in question is suffering from any defect and as such he has not been able to make out any case of deficiency in service and indulgence of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7.                For reasons recorded above, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit and substance, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

8.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03/03/2016                                                                                    Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER