DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.107 of 2015
Date of institution: 10.03.2015 Date of decision : 04.10.2016
Pradeep Kumar son of Naresh Kumar, resident of House No.177/A, Dashmesh Nagar, Sector 15, Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Branch Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.194/195, Indl. Area, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh 160022.
2. CEO/MD, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: Plot No.51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida 201306, Uttar Pradesh (India).
3. Proprietor/Partner M/s. Sangam Electronics, Main Bazar, Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab) Authorised Dealer of M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
4. Proprietor/Partner M/s. GEE DEE Services (Authorised Service Centre of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.), Khalsa Colony, Opp. Jyoti Swroop Gurudwara, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 to 14
of the Consumer Protection Act
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Ms. Pushpa Salaria, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Arjun Grover, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant, Pradeep Kumar son of Naresh Kumar, resident of House No.177/A, Dashmesh Nagar, Sector 15, Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab), has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant had purchased one LG Refrigerator for Rs.16,800/- on 28.04.2006 from OP No.3. The refrigerator was working properly but after expiry of its warranty, it stopped working. The complainant contacted OP No.4 who sent its Service Engineer, who after proper service did not inform any defect in the compressor. The refrigerator was working smoothly but on 24.11.2014 at 3.30 AM the complainant and his family members heard sound like of crackers and smoke coming out from the drawing and bed room. The Fire Brigade and police as well as OP No.3 were informed telephonically. The representatives of the OPs visited the spot and inspected the incident in the presence of police, fire brigade, press and medical and other respectable of public. The representatives of the OPs agreed that the incident had happened due to catching of fire on account of overheating of compressor. However, they also did not rule out the possibility of other technical defects in the refrigerator. DDR No.29 dated 24.11.2014 was registered at PS City, Kharar and report No.462 dated 26.11.2014 was lodged at Fire Station, Mohali. The damages caused due to burst and fire was assessed as Rs.11,00,000/- for house hold articles and for repair to the building it was assessed at Rs.4,00,000/- approximately. However, after receipt of copy of DDR, Fire Brigade report, photographs etc. the OPs denied the claim on the ground that the refrigerator was out of warranty. It is pleaded that the refrigerator had inherent defect and the OPs were aware of the same. From the investigations it is revealed that fire took place due to overheating of compressor of the refrigerator. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- for damages and further to pay him Rs.1,50,000/- for harassment and litigation charges.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs by filing written statement in which they had raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complainant contacted the OPs on 07.03.2013 with issue of cooling and the engineer of the OPs after thorough inspection found the refrigerator upto mark and the complainant was apprised of the same. The OPs received a call on 24.11.2014 from the complainant about the fire at his place and upon conclusion of investigation it was found that the product was completely burnt and only compressor was available for analysis. The complainant had cleaned the burnt site due to which complete evidence could not be taken for analysis. The report prepared by Fire Brigade does not show that the incident took place due to bursting of compressor of the refrigerator. As per the investigation conducted by the team of the OPs, the compressor was intact and did not burst. Even in the report of CFSL it was categorically stated that the compressor of the product was not found in burst condition. The refrigerator was purchased in the year 2006 and the alleged incident took place on 24.11.2014, hence the complaint is barred by limitation. Till 2013 the complainant never approached the OPs for any defect in the refrigerator. On merits also, the OPs have denied the averments of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex. CW-1/1, CW-1/2 and affidavit of Naresh Kumar Ex.CW-1/3; copies of bill Ex.C-1; invoice Ex.C-2; DDR Ex.C-3; fire brigade report Ex.C-4; newspaper report Mark-A; loss assessment report Ex.C-5; legal notice Ex.C-6; postal receipts Ex.C-8; warranty card Ex.C-9; letter dated 15.01.2015 Ex.C-10; letter alongwith envelope dated 27.05.2015 Ex.C-11; letter dated 26.11.2015 alongwith envelope Ex.C-12 and letter dated 14.12.2015 Ex.C-13. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Naresh Kumar, Regional Service Manager Ex.OP-1/1; copies of job sheet and certificate Ex.OP-1/1; report Ex.OP-2; report of CFSL Ex.OP-3; certificate Ex.OP-4 and warranty card Ex.OP-5.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the refrigerator was having inherent defects and due to that it was got repaired from the OPs on number of occasions. Though the warranty of the refrigerator had expired but it was got repaired from the OPs on 07.03.2013 and at that time the complainant was not informed about any defect in the compressor. The fire took place on 24.11.2014 due to overheating of compressor of the refrigerator due to which the household articles were damaged. The police had recorded the DDR regarding incident of fire and even Fire Brigade department prepared the report. The Ops have wrongly not honoured the claim of the complainant.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs has argued from the report of the CFSL i.e Ex.OP-3 sought by the Forum it is clearly established that the compressor of the product was not found in burst condition. Moreover, the refrigerator was purchased in 2006 and it had been functioning perfectly as the complainant had never reported any defect to the OPs.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral submission, we are of the view that it is established from the CFSL report i.e. Ex.OP-3 that the compressor of the product was not found in burst condition. The relevant part of the report states “the burnt compressor and its relay of the exhibit-I were thoroughly examined in the laboratory. The compressor of the exhibit-I was not found in burst condition. However, the same was found internally shorted.” It is proved from the expert opinion that the product busted due to internally shorted and not due to compressor. The DDR i.e. Ex.C-3; fire brigade report i.e. Ex.C-4 and newspaper report i.e. Mark-A do not establish that compressor of the product busted. Thus, we agree with the findings of the expert report Ex.OP-3.
9. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion and the expert report, we find that the OPs have not indulged in any unfair trade practice as the product busted due to internally shorted and that too after 9 years of purchase. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Parties to bear their own costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 19.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 04.10.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
