Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/584/2014

Capt. Tejinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.S.Vashisht,Adv

28 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	584 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	13.11.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	28.05.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Capt. Tejinder Singh, House No.19, Sector 22, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A Wind (3^rd Floor), D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi through its Managing Director 110017

 

2]  M/s Satlej Enterprises, SCO No.84,  Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Sh.N.S.Vashisht, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Aditaya Grover, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant he purchased one LG-LED 32 LV 3000 T.V. for Rs.35,000/- and one LG AC LS A24CRSFHI for Rs.36,000/- from the Opposite Party No.2, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, on 11.11.2011 and 23.11.2011 respectively vide bills Ann.C-1 & C-2.  The OPs installed both the said items at the residence of the complainant.  However, the technician of the OPs installed the Inner Unit of the Split AC above the LED TV already installed on the same wall. On 19.6.2014, the LED TV suddenly stopped working and the Service Engineer of the Opposite Party NO.1, aforesaid after inspecting the unit, informed that Picture Panel of the TV has been short circuited/burnt due to water which has fallen on it from the Inner Unit of the Split AC installed above TV. However, the Service Engineer thereafter informed that the said Picture Panel is not available with the Company as it has stopped manufacturing the same.  Let with no alternative, the complainant had to purchase a new TV on 7.7.2014 at the cost of Rs.49,500/- from Opposite Party No.1 vide Ann.C-3. It is also stated that if there was a danger of water leaking from the Inner Unit of the AC, then it is a manufacturing defect for which the company is responsible. Moreover, the LED TV became defective in less than 3 years and the complainant also stopped manufacturing its spare parts like the Picture Panel, as a result, the consumer has to purchase a new product, which amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of the damaged LED TV, which got damaged due to leakage from defected Split AC and to refund the amount of the defective Split AC, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and admitted the sale and installation of the products in question at the premises of the complainant. However, it is submitted that the infact the AC in question was got installed by the complainant himself at his own level and were not installed by the engineer of the Opposite Party No.1 Company after the installation of the LED.  Even otherwise, the location where the products are to be installed is always as per customers choice and the technician cannot overrule the same. It is admitted as matter of record that complainant lodged the complaint about problem in the LED TV in question and the Engineer of the Company, after inspection reported that “found panel defective”, water went inside panel from AC and held that the Panel is not repairable.  The complainant was informed that the panel of LED TV would be replaced on chargeable basis which shall be approximately Rs.15,000/- to which complainant flatly refused.  It is submitted that in cases where the spares of the products are not available/stopped manufacturing, the Opposite Party NO.1 Company has a depreciation policy in case of genuine failure of part and the Company refunds the amount after depreciation even if the Unit is out of warranty.  However, since in the instant case the panel got defective due to water drops getting inside, source due to the negligence of the customer himself and due to tempering by external source, even the same policy could not be applied.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint against the OPs on the ground that he had purchased an air conditioner on 23.11.2011 and LED TV by paying amount of Rs.36,000/-  & Rs.35,000/- respectively and the same was got installed from the technicians of the OPs at the premises of the complainant.  The complainant has alleged that though the Engineers/Technicians are supposed to be expert in their field, but they still preferred to install the inner unit of the Split AC above the LED TV console.  The complainant claims that on 19.6.2014, the LED TV in question stopped working and started showing distorted pictures.  A complaint was lodged on the toll-free number and on the visit of the Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1, it was disclosed that the picture panel of the LED TV has got short-circuited/burnt due to the water, which had fallen from the inner unit of the AC, installed above the LED TV.  A repair cost of Rs.15,000/- was demanded and the complainant was asked to wait at least for a week’s time for replacement.  Thereafter, the complainant was told that the said picture panel is not available and even the manufacturing of the LED TV in question has been stopped by Opposite Party No.1.

 

6]       The complainant thereafter purchased another Television on 7.7.2014 of Rs.49,500/- as per Ann.C-3, but was left with no other alternative to get his old LED TV repaired as neither the company had the spare parts, which he could purchase to get his LED TV functional and even had alleged that the OPs created an excuse of tempering of the Television by an external source, which he had vehemently denied.  The complainant thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs on the ground that the Opposite Party No.1 was duty bound to repair the LED TV in question after having promised to do it at the cost of Rs.15,000/-.  The complainant has also claimed that OPs after discontinuing the manufacturing of the LED TV in question within 2½ years of its sale, failed to maintain sufficient spares for the repair of LED TV already sold to him.  The complainant has also raised objection at the intelligence and Skillman ship of the engineer/technical of the Opposite Party Company, who had installed the LED TV in question immediately below the internal unit of the spilt AC without foreseeing the consequence of the leakage of water from such unit.  The complainant has sought the relief quoted in the complaint against the OPs.

 

7]         The OPs have filed their joint reply claiming that there is no case of deficiency in service made out against them as it was on the instance of the complainant that the LED TV was installed at the place mentioned by him.  It is further claimed that no fault is located in the installation, however, it was on account of delayed servicing of the internal unit of the air conditioner that the water started to collect, resultantly, dripped on the LED TV panel, causing damage to it.  The OPs have also relied upon the Job Sheet Ann.R-1 dated 19.6.2014, wherein once of its Service Engineer has mentioned  that the “LED panel got defected due to water seepage inside the LED” and “the panel is not repairable due to set tempered by outside mechanic.”  The OPs have also raised this objection that there was a gap of nearly 12 days in the installation of both the appliances and the air conditioning unit was got installed by the complainant on his own from an unauthorized technician, as there was no proof of any payment of any installation charges payable for such job, which the OPs claim was necessary.

8]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the LED TV in question was duly installed by the Engineer/Technician of the OPs as the same has been admitted by them in their reply/version.  However, the complainant having claimed that even the air conditioner was installed by their service engineer, was contested by the OPs, but no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the OPs to prove that during the month of installation of complainant’s air conditioning unit, a given number of air conditioners were installed by them on payment basis from their different customer and the complainant’s name did not figure in it.  Furthermore, the document placed on record by the OPs along with their written submission, which details the installation charges applicable for installation of such equipments is dated 21.8.2014 along with covering e-mail letter dated 22.8.2014 cannot be made applicable to the case of the complainant for the reason, if any such installation charges were payable at the time of purchase of air conditioner in question, has not been brought on record by the OPs.  The Opposite Party’s defence with regard to their not having installed the air conditioning unit immediately above the LED TV console diminishes as there is no conclusive evidence placed on record by the OPs to rebut the claim of the complainant.  Therefore, we can safely conclude that both the appliances i.e. LED TV and Split AC internal unit were installed by the technicians of the Opposite Parties and also that they themselves ignored to foreseen any future leakage of water from the air conditioning unit, causing damage to the LED TV nor they advised the complainant if he had insisted for such installation.  Therefore, the OPs NO.1 & 2 are certainly liable for the ignorance of their technicians and the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part.      

 

9]       The second allegation of the complainant is with regard to non-repair of the LED in question by the OPs even after having promised to do the same on payment of Rs.15,000/- as cost of the repair and declaring that the same cannot be repaired due to non-availability of the spare LED panel.  It is necessary to point out that the LED in question started to give problem on 19.6.2014 and on the visit of service engineer on 20.6.2014, a job sheet Ann.R-1 was prepared, disclosing that the LED TV in question was out of warranty and that the panel was not repairable due to tempering by outside mechanic. The complainant after having waited for a fair response from the OPs, was compelled to buy another TV from 17.7.2014 i.e. nearly after 13 months and that there was no communication from the side of the OPs during this entire period clearly indicates that they were short of any solution to the problem of the complainant and were unable to redress his grievance with regard to the repair of the LED TV in question.  This act of the OPs to delay the matter indefinitely without giving any conclusive direction to the complainant, certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part and furthermore, non-maintainability of sufficient spares to repair the product sold to unsuspecting customers, is an unfair trade practice, which causes much greater loss to the quantum of the product, as in the case of the complainant he could not use the damaged LED TV purchased at the price of Rs.35,000/- though he was ready to pay Rs.15,000/- as its repair cost.

 

10]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and also having indulged into unfair trade practice by not maintaining sufficient spares in their inventory.  Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

 

[a] The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 [b] The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

28.05.2015                                                

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

 

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.584 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 28th day of April, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member