Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1. The complainant Sri. Chidambara K.R has filed this complaint against opposite party No.1 LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,.  Opposite party No.2 Tejas Services, Mysuru.  Opposite party No.3 R.C. Service Point, Mysuru. Opposite party No.4 Manthram, Mysuru praying to hold that the opposite parties have rendered deficiency in service and order for immediate replacement of the dead product with warranty and immediate refunding of the AMC charges paid and for refunding of Rs.22,915/- paid for standby purifier and order for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The brief facts are that:-

The complainant has purchased LG’s True Water Purifier from opposite party No.4 for Rs.34,000/- under invoice No.01761 dated 29.10.2015 and the same was delivered and installed on 03.11.2015 with demo and introduction.The opposite party No.1 offered AMC worth Rs.4,200/- to the water purifier for the warranty period as under;

(1) 3 Free Scheduled and Automated Visits.

(2) 3 Free Digital Sterlising Care.

(3) 3 Free Pre-Sediment Filter’s.

(4) 1 free Complete set of filters.

Under 1^st AMC period the scheduled AMC services to be offeredon 02.03.2016, 02.07.2016 and 02.11.2016.The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 as per schedule are to provide 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd AMC services to the water filter during 03.11.2015 to 02.11.2016.Accordingly opposite party No.2 or 3 should have carried out 3 free Digital Sterlising cared and 3 Free Pre-Sediment Filter’s and 1 complete set of all other filters.The said service offers are essential pre-requisite services for trouble free working of the water purifier.Under 1^st AMC period AMC services provided on 29.02.2016, 06.07.2016 and 07.02.2017, subsequent years of AMC service the services are paid services for the period from 10.02.2017 to 09.02.2018.The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.6,078/- towards the same and AMC service scheduled to be provided on 09.06.2017, 09.10.2017 and 09.02.2018.But the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 did not turn up to provide periodical paid service.Therefore water purifier totally blocked and dead.Hence, the complainant has purchased a brand new AO Smith Z6 water purifier by paying Rs.22,915/- on 14.03.2017.The complainant has purchased costly one LG’s Premium True Water Purifier for Rs.34,000/- since there was an assurance of the above services and subsequent service on payment, but the opposite parties not rendered proper service and harassed the complainant and thereby committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.Hence, this complaint.

3. After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite parties.  In response to notice opposite party Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsels and filed common version on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

4.      In spite of service of notice upon opposite party No.4.  Opposite party No.4 does not turned up.  Hence, opposite party No.4 was placed exparte.

5.      In the version of opposite party Nos.1 to 3 it is contended that the opposite party No.1 is one of the biggest Multi National Companies operating in India since more than 2 decades and  invests very hugely in research and development wing and it has both world class manufacturing facility and research and development facility in India.  The brand LG has become an invariable part in daily life of millions of people in India as well as in other countries throughout the globe.  Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are the authorized service centers of the opposite party No.1.  The complaint as is brought is a false, frivolous and vexatious hence the same is liable to be dismissed and it is admitted that the complainant has purchased water purifier for Rs.34,000/- from opposite party No.4 and also admitted that opposite party No.1 offered AMC worth of Rs.4,200/- to the water purifier and also admitted that the opposite party No.1 offered 1^st service on 02.03.2016, 2^nd service on 02.07.2016 and 3^rd service on 02.11.2016 and also admitted that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 ought to have provided services for a period of one year from the date of purchase and contended that the opposite party serviced the product periodically on 03.11.2015, 29.02.2016, 06.07.2016, 26.10.2016 and 07.02.2017 and contended that the complainant has not come with clean hands and also admitted that subsequent years AMC are paid service for the period from 10.02.2017 to 09.02.2018, but denied the payment of Rs.6,078/- on 10.02.2017 by the complainant towards paid service and also contended that the filters were replaced and sterilization was done and it is contended that whenever the service request has been raised same has been attended there is no negligence or shortcoming on the part of opposite party and denied the allegations made in the complaint that the opposite parties have harassed the complainant and contended that the complainant expected more than warranty from the company for all these reasons prays to dismiss the complaint.

6. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief the same was taken as PW.1 and got marked Exhibit P.1 to P.6.  On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has filed its affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as RW.1  and got marked Exhibit R.1. 

7. The complainant and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have filed written arguments.  Opposite party No.3 does not turned up and not addressed arguments.

8. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

9.      Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- In the negative;

       Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

10. Point No.1:-  It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased one LG’s True Water Purifier product No.WHD71RB4RP from opposite party No.4 for Rs.34,000/- under invoice No.01761 dated 29.10.2015.  The opposite party No.1 has admitted the said fact and the complainant has produced credit invoice dated 29.10.2015 issued by opposite party No.4 which clearly goes to show that the complainant has purchased the said water purifier from opposite party No.4.  Therefore the fact of purchasing of LG’s True Water Purifier for Rs.34,000/- from opposite party No.4 is stands established.  It is the contention of the complainant that the opposite party No.1 offered annual  maintenance contract worth of Rs.4,200/- and provided services on 29.02.2016, on 06.07.2016 and on 07.02.2017, but not provided 1^st service on 02.03.2016 and produced job sheet dated 07.02.2017, 06.07.2016, 29.02.2016 and 03.11.2015.  Therefore it is admittedly to clear that the opposite party No.1 provided AMC services except 1^st service.  So for as 1^st AMC service is concerned to be provided on 02.03.2016, the opposite party No.1 in its version categorically stated that on 29.02.2016 service request has been raised and the same has been attended on 05.03.2016.  Therefore the allegation made by complainant that on 02.03.2016 opposite parties not provided 1^st AMC service appears to be not correct.  The opposite party No.1 in the version has categorically admitted the AMC service as well as paid services to be provided and accordingly as and when request has been raised for attending the AMC services the same were promptly attended by opposite parties.  The opposite parties have also produced job sheet dated 03.11.2015, 29.02.2016, 06.07.2016, 26.10.2016, 07.02.2017, 12.06.2017, 11.10.2017, 25.10.2017 and 16.02.2018.  For having attended AMC service and also the paid AMC service, accordingly paid AMC services were attended on 12.06.2017, 11.10.2017 and on 16.02.2018 instead  on 09.06.2017, 09.10.2017, 09.02.2018 as promised by the opposite parties.
11.      The complainant has alleged that he has paid a sum of Rs.6,078/- on 10.02.2017 to opposite parties towards paid AMC service for the period 10.02.2017 to 09.02.2018.  But opposite party Nos.2 and 3 did not turn up to provide any of the scheduled periodical paid service, but the allegation made by the complainant that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 did not turn up to provide paid AMC services is absolutely incorrect.  Since the opposite party No.1 has specifically admitted the payment of Rs.6,078/- by the complainant to opposite parties towards AMC paid service to be attended on 09.06.2017, 09.10.2017, 09.02.2018 and further clearly stated that accordingly the opposite parties provided AMC paid service as per schedule.  The opposite parties have produced job sheet dated 12.06.2017, 11.10.2017, 25.10.2017 and 16.02.2018 to show for having provided paid AMC services.   Therefore it is crystal clear that as promised by the opposite parties they have provided paid services.  Therefore the allegation made by the complainant that the opposite parties did not provide 1^st AMC service cannot be believed and accepted, since the opposite parties by producing the job sheets have clearly proved that they had provided 1^st AMC service as well as paid AMC service to the LG’s True Water Purifier purchased by the complainant.

12.      It is the allegation of the complainant that due to not providing 1^st AMC service and paid AMC service by the opposite parties to the LG water purifier purchased by the complainant from opposite parties the water purifier totally blocked/dead.  Therefore he purchased a brand new AO Smith Z6 water purifier  by paying Rs.22,915/-.  The purchasing of afore mentioned water purifier by the complainant is no way concerned to the present case with respect to LG’s True Water Purifier purchased by the complainant on 29.10.2015 for Rs.34,000/- from opposite party No.4.  The complainant might have purchased the AO Smith Z6 Water Purifier for his needs that cannot be attached to the present complaint.

13.       On going through the complaint averments, affidavit of complainant, documents relied upon by him and the version of opposite parties and documents relied upon by them, prima-facie it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice committed by opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.  The allegation made by the complainant that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is remained only the allegations without any proof.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no merits in the complaint and complainant is not entitle to any reliefs as sought in the complaint.  Therefore the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  Hence,  we  answer point No.1 in the negative.

14.    Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 1^st September, 2021)