| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/184/22 Date of Institution:- 22.07.2022 Order Reserved on:- 18.12.2023 Date of Decision:- 14.03.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Debabrata Seth DDA Flat No.619, Sec 13A, Phase-2, Rosewood Apartment Dwarka, New Delhi – 110078 .….. Complainant VERSUS LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. A-24/6, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044 …..Opposite Party ORDER Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - The Complainant was using a refrigerator with a gross volume of 310 Liters, Model No.GL-322RPJLAWGZEBN, manufactured by the OP. The Complainant had paid Rs.31,000/- for the said Refrigerator on 29.07.2014.
- The Complainant lodged a complaint No.RNP220305032546 with the OP on 05.03.2022 for ice accumulation inside the freezer, which caused the cooling of the lower section of the Fridge to stop completely. The Complainant states that the OP technician replaced the controller assembly the next day and assured him that the Refrigerator would work perfectly after replacing the defective part. The Complainant paid Rs.1149.50/- to the OP for the part replacement.
- After 20 days, the Complainant again noticed the same issue and immediately lodged another complaint, RNP220328023273, on 28.03.2022. The Complainant states that this time, the OP engineer informed him that the Plate Heater of the Fridge was defective and could not be repaired. The OP engineer allegedly told the Complainant that the entire Fridge should be replaced in such a case.
- The Complainant informed the OP CEO's office and the Head of Customer Service via e-mail dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 and also spoke to the Area Service Engineer of the OP. He was informed that the Plate Heater was beyond repair. The OP official also proposed on 05.05.2022 for a replacement with the same litre configuration or to pay the differential amount for a higher capacity fridge. On 13.05.2022, the Complainant received a letter proposing a refund of 20% of the purchase value of existing Fridge and an 18% discount on DP on the purchase of a new refrigerator, which was unacceptable to him.
- Feeling pressured and cheated, the Complainant, therefore, filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and prayed for directions to the OP to pay Ra.35,000/- for the purchase of a new fridge of any brand of the same capacity, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and to also pay him the cost of litigation.
- Notice was issued to the OP to file their reply. In their reply, the OP admitted that the Complainant lodged the first complaint after using the Refrigerator in question for 7.5 years on 05.03.2022. The OP immediately removed the defect by replacing the Controller Assembly at cost. Thereafter, another complaint was filed by the Complainant on 28.03.2022. Upon inspection by the OP engineer, it was found that the Heater Plate was defective.
- The OP states that as the Fridge was 7.5 years old, it was their observation that the repair could be unreliable and uneconomical; hence, the Complainant's Refrigerator was not repaired. Instead, the OP gave the Complainant an alternative solution and an exchange offer as settlement via a letter dated 13.05.2022 towards a refund of 20% of purchase value under the OP's depreciation policy. The Complainant was also offered an additional discount of 15% on dealer price. But the Complainant chose not to accept the offer and instead asked for replacement of the Refrigerator on FOC and/or refund even though the Fridge was well beyond the warranty period. The Complainant, therefore, preferred to file a malafide, arbitrary complaint against the terms of warranty that deserves to be dismissed.
- The Complainant filed the rejoinder and his affidavit to be read as evidence reiterating his averments in toto. The OP filed the affidavit of Sh. Ajayan G., AR of the OP, who also repeated the statements made in the reply filed by the OP. Both parties filed their written arguments and addressed final arguments.
- We have heard the contesting parties and have also perused the documents filed by them to corroborate their testimonies.
- Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the Complainant purchased the Refrigerator manufactured by the OP on 29.07.2014 (Annexure-1), paying Rs.31,000/-. The Complainant used the Refrigerator without any complaint for 7 years. He lodged a complaint with the OP on 05.03.2022 about the accumulation inside the freezer. The OP technician replaced the Controller Assembly, charging Rs.1149.50/- for the service provided.
- However, after approx. 20 days the Complainant again felt that his Fridge was not working correctly and lodged another complaint on 28.03.2022. The OP engineer informed the Complainant that the Plate Heater was defective. Annexure-3 is the copy of the job sheet issued for the aforementioned complaint wherein the defect reported by the OP Engineer is mentioned as "Plate heater issue/Defrost issue." The Complainant seeking a replacement for his Refrigerator repeatedly communicated with the OP officials to resolve his issue but to no avail.
- The OP admitted to the Complainant's Refrigerator having a defective heating plate, which the OP felt could not be repaired reliably and economically as the Refrigerator was old. Hence, the OP suggested an alternate solution of a refund of 20% of the purchase value of the Complainant's refrigerator unit beyond the OP's depreciation policy, as the Fridge was out of warranty through the letter dated 13.05.2022. The OP also assured a 15% discount to settle the Complainant's issue, denying replacement of the Complainant's Fridge as it was well beyond the warranty period. The Complainant refused the OP's offer.
- A bare perusal of this letter dated 13.05.2022 shows that the OP unilaterally made the decision that the repair of the "Heater Plate" was unreliable and uneconomical for the Complainant without even once giving him the estimated cost for the repair of the defective Heater Plate despite the Complainant having paid Rs.1149.50/- for the replaced Controller Assembly on 05.03.2022 without protest i.e. a few days before the Heater Plate was discovered to be defective. Neither has the OP filed the calculation on the year-wise depreciation values of the OP refrigerator nor have they placed any communication regarding the same on record with the Complainant.
- In our view, it was not the OP's purview to decide if the Complainant was not ready to bear the cost or consequence of the paid repair/replacement of the Heater Plate, as the refrigerator warranty was undoubtedly out of warranty.
- Therefore, we feel that this unilateral act of the OP is tantamount to deficient service under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, allowing the complaint, we find the OP guilty of deficiency-in-service and direct the OP to pay the Complainant a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to him due to their unilateral decision without allowing him to choose for himself whichever option he found more convenient. Alternatively, the OP may repair the defective part of the Complainant's Refrigerator. No other order as to cost.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 14.03.2024.
| |
