Order No. 17 dt. 24/11/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that she purchased one LG Micro-oven machine on 15.02.2010 at a price of Rs.12,600/- from the OP no.3. The said Micro-oven had warranty for one year and further warranty was given for another one year. After expiry of the said one year the complainant paid Annual Maintenance contract and three years AMC was effected from 11.05.2012 to 20.05.2012 for which the complainant had to pay Rs.1986/-. The complainant during the course of her using the said Oven found that there was some problem and from time to time informed the OP Nos. 1 and 2 and she was informed on 28.06.2013 that said Micro oven model is out of the production and they won’t be able to provide the required services. Subsequently the complainant received an email wherein it was informed that she would get 30% money refund of her invoice value and 20% extra for AMC. The complainant after getting the message sent a letter on 24.07.2013 to the companies rejecting the offer and asked for replacement of her MICRO OVEN and refund the AMC amount but no reply was given by the OPs.
In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above the complainant prayed for replacement for MICRO OVEN or a sum of Rs.15,000/- and also compensation for Rs.50,000/-.
OP Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing written version whereby the OPs denied that all the material allegations of the complainant. It was stated that whenever the complainant lodged a complaint a Representative of the company visited the house of the complainant but the complainant did not allow the mechanic of the OP for repairing or replacement. The OP further stated that as the parts of the particular model of the said MO would not be available in the market. The OP was ready to replace the said Micro oven or returned the value of the said MO to the complainant. It was stated that the complainant never approached the OPs or lodged any complaint. In order to build up a story the complainant manufactured the case and made allegation against the OPs.
In view of the facts as stated above the OPs has prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the Micro oven of the complainant had any defect;
- Whether the Micro oven create a problem during the warranty period;
- Whether the OPs failed to take any action in spite of having an AMC in respect of the said Micro oven;
- Whether there was a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs;
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a Micro-oven from the OP NO.3 manufactured by OP no.1 and she paid the price of the Micro oven and after the expiry of the period of warranty the complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs for AMC in respect of the said Micro oven. During the period of AMC the complainant faced various problems in the said micro-oven. Immediately thereafter the complainant informed the OPs but the OPs did not take any action. Ultimately the complainant had to file this case praying for replacement of the micro-oven and also return of the amount paid toards AMC. In order to fortify the said contention the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that the complainant was harassed and no reply was given by the OPs for which the complainant had to file this case praying for the relief as sought for by her.
The Ld. Lawyer for the OP argued that the complainant was offered for replacement of the Micro-oven as well as if the complainant does not want to have the replacement she will be paid the value of the said oven as per the price mentioned in the invoice. The Ld. Lawyer for the OPs emphasized that whenever the complainant lodged complaint, a mechanic was sent but he was not allowed to do the work resulting in the OP did not get the opportunity to inspect the defects of the machine. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the Ld. Lawyer for the OPs argued that the complainant had the fall on her part and accordingly she will not be entitled to get the compensation as sought for by her .
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant purchased the micro-oven on 15.02.2010 from the OP No3 During the warranty period there was no trouble in the said micro-oven machine. Subsequently during the period of AMC, some problems cropped up and the OP sent a mechanic to remove the defects but the mechanic was not allowed to inspect the machine. Thereby it cannot be said that the OP did not take any action on their part after they came to know the defects in the said micro-oven . The OPs in their written objection admitted that the model which the complainant purchased is no longer available vis-à-vis the parts also for which the complainant was asked to take back the price of the Micro-oven as well as if she desires she can be provided with a new Micro-oven presently available in the market.
Considering the arguments of both sides it is crystal clear that the complainant was given the opportunity to get back the price of the Micro-oven and or she may avail of the new Micro-oven from the OPs after retrning the old ones. Since the complainant had to file this case for redressal of hergrievances she will be entitled to get the compensation as well as litigation cost because of the fact that OPs could not produce any document before this Forum that prior to filing of this case the complainant was offered the price of the Micro oven or she was offered to replace the old MICRO OVEN with a new Micro-oven.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
that the CC No.163/2014 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no.1 and The will be entitled to get the price of the Micro-Oven paid by her or she can have a new Micro-oven after returning the old one. The complainant will also be entitled to get compensation for Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. OP Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. OP No.3 is not liable to pay any cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
