Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/78/2020

Dr. Mrs. Bimla Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

15 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/78/2020
Date of Institution	:	13/02/2020
Date of Decision	:	15/01/2021

 

 

Dr. Mrs. Bimla Bhatia C/o Dr. Col. N.K. Bhatia, Resident of #1160, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Head of Customer Service, L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A-Wing (Third Floor), D-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017.

 

2.      M/s Sachdeva Electronic Centre, Shop No.11-12, Sector 31-C, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

PRESENT:	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Arjun Grover, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant purchased L.G. refrigerator from M/s Sachdeva Electronic Centre on 07.08.2019 for Rs.53,449/- vide invoice Annexure C-1.  According to the Complainant, she was delivered a faulty refrigerator with defective compressor which was replaced by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant claims that after the aforesaid replacement, a hole in the base of the refrigerator was noticed. The Complainant immediately notified said aspect to the Opposite Parties and requested for the replacement of the refrigerator. However, despite constant reminders and follow ups with the Opposite Parties, they neither replaced the refrigerator nor provided a reasonable justification for not replacing the faulty refrigerator. 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 Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case, pleaded that there is no manufacturing defect/unfair trade practice or deficiency in serviced on their part, as the Complainant was herself at fault. As and when complaints were lodged by the Complainant, the same were duly attended by the Service Engineer of the Opposite Parties and the refrigerator was functional to the complete satisfaction of the Complainant (Job-Sheets Annexure R-1 to R-3). It has been pleaded that in Nov. 2019 when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties regarding some issue in the refrigerator. The Service Engineer, who attended the Complaint, found that there was a big hole in the base of the refrigerator below the fruit/vegetable tray, which was due to some burning. Accordingly, the Complainant was apprised that the hole in the refrigerator was on account of mishandling, for which the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
7.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 copy of the retail invoice that the Complainant purchased one L.G. refrigerator from Opposite Party No.2 on 07.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.53,449/-. The sole grouse of the Complainant is that the refrigerator in question was faulty since very beginning and despite three major repairs done by the Opposite Parties the same is not functioning properly till today. There is specific mention in the Complaint that the Complainant is a senior citizen and her husband is suffering from brain tumor and she has to very often visit the Hospital for the regular follow-up of her husband.  
8.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that as and when the Complainant lodged the Complaint for any fault in the refrigerator in question, the same was duly attended by the Service Engineer of the Opposite Parties and the refrigerator is made functional to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant as per job-sheets Annexure R-1 to R-3 respectively.
9.         After careful scrutiny of the record, we find that the refrigerator was checked by the Service Engineer of the Opposite Parties on 18.09.2019 vide job-sheet Annexure R-1 and admittedly, some adjustments were done in the product i.e. within time period of less than one month of its purchase. Thereafter, as per Annexure  R-2 dated 28.09.2019, the Condenser of the refrigerator was replaced and also gas charging was done. Not only this, again, on 12.10.2019, as per Annexure R-3 the thermostat adjustment was done. Also, there is matter of hole in the base of the refrigerator which has not been sorted out by the Opposite Parties blaming the Complainant for her own mishandling of the product.  
10.         Perusal of the job-sheets (Annexure R-1 to R-3) clearly shows that the Complainant had to suffer on the hands of the Opposite Parties within a short span of the purchase of the refrigerator that too after spending a huge amount of Rs.53,449/-. In our concerted opinion, the consumer buys a product trusting the brand and the ethical polices of the company/manufacturer to serve their consumers after the purchase of the product. Merely enjoying the title of international reputation and oral assertion for their highly ethical policies does not mean that they are giving proper services to their consumers. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for not attending the genuine Complaint of the Complainant who is a senior citizen with her husband seriously sick proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
11.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]    To refund the invoice amount of Rs.53,449/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 07.08.2019, till realization.

[b]    To pay Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

[c]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of purchase i.e. 07.08.2019, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.  
13.         The Complainant shall return the refrigerator in question to the Opposite Parties after the compliance of the order.
14.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15^th Jan., 2021

                        Sd/-  

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”