BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.398 of 2017
Date of Instt. 16.10.2017
Date of Decision: 13.11.2018
Rohit Chopra and Rajat Chopra S/o Sh. Pawan Chopra R/o H. No.NB 266 Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar City, Punjab Pin 144001 age 32 years.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A Wing 3rd Floor, Distt Center Saket, New Delhi-110017, India through its Managing Director through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative.
2. Global Services through its Managing Director through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative. 486L, Model Town, Back Side Geeta Mandir, Jalandhar 144001. Jalandhar.
3. Aarco Electronics, Gem House, GT Road, Jalandhar through its Managing Director, Director/General Manager/Manager/ Representative
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. KK Gupta, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
None for the OP No.1.
OPs No.2 and 3 Exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased LG Washing Machine from OP No.3, vide Invoice No.Aej/13-14/1059 dated 10.06.2013 for amounting to Rs.44,200/-. The said product is under warranty, vide extended warranty policy/AMC No.020734 for a period till 31.08.2018 for which complainant paid a separate Rs.4484/- in cash.
2. That complainant registered a complaint on 19 September, 2017 with OP bearing complaint No.RNP170919049453 for non working of the product and executive reported that machine there is a problem with the electric socket and customer replaced the socket, which was having no problem, the actual fact after the replacement of the sockets machine was not in working condition so, the matter was again reported to the executive of the LG online on 05.10.2017 bearing No.RNP171004009274 and after the service engineer visited to the house of the complainant and after the preliminary checking of the machine, service engineer reported that there is a problem with the PCV of this machine, which need to be replaced and within 2 to 3 days your machine will be set in working condition perfectly free of cost as the product is under warranty, which is not disputed, but the complainant requested to resolve this issue as soon as possible as the machine is not in working condition since 19.09.2017 and the complainant and his family is facing hardship in washing of the routine clothes and on this service engineer assured that she will try to rectify the problem by tomorrow. Till date product of the complainant is not working condition and complaint of the complainant dated 05.10.2017 has been closed by the LG Service Centre without repairing the product and without providing any information to the complainant. No signature of the complainant was ever taken on the job sheet nor any satisfaction note was given by the complainant. The complainant again called the LG customer care on 15.10.2017 enquiring about the address of the service centre there complainant came to know that LG company is ready to initiate the refund/replacement of the product, but regarding this no information was given to the complainant and complainant is still with the non working product since 19.09.2017. The act and conduct of the OP, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thus, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OP No.1 and 2 be directed to refund the product amount of Rs.44,200/- along with Rs.4485/- of the amount of extended warranty with interest and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- and counsel fee of Rs.11,000/-, to the complainant.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and even after service OP No.2 and 3 failed to appear and OP No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
4. OP No.1 served and appeared through his counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is vague and evasive and further alleged that the complaint under reply is gross abuse of the process of law. The complainant has filed a complaint with the sole motive of pressuring and harassing the answering OP to submit to the unreasonable and mischievous demands of the complainant and further submitted that the complaint of the complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer and even complainant No.1 Rohit Chopra has no concern with the present complaint and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and further alleged that the complainant himself is a wrong doer and it is settled law that a person who comes to the Court with soil hands is not entitled to any relief. The complainants have filed this complaint on the false and concocted facts, whereas the true and correct facts are that the complainant Rohit Chopra, who is not a consumer nor a buyer of the product as mentioned in the complaint has earlier also filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act for defect in LG LED, which is still pending and further submitted that there is no defect in the Washing Machine of the complainant. Even then the OP is ready to rectify the same if falls in the warranty. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the said product. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, one of the complainant Rohit Chopra himself tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and then closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, Branch Service Manager as Ex.OW1/A along with some documents Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2 and then closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. Before imparting with the main issue in dispute, we like to take an objection raised by the OP that complainant No.1 Rohit Chopra has no concern with the complaint as he has not purchased the product in question, so, he is neither consumer nor buyer of the product. We considered this aspect and find that the original invoice of the product was issued in the name of Rajat Chopra and thereafter, a Job Sheet was issued by the OP on 01.09.2017, the same is in the name of Rohit Chopra, not so extended warranty Ex.C-7 also issued in the name of Rohit Chopra of the same product i.e. Washing Machine. So, from the above documents, it is clear that the OP itself issued some documents in the name of Rohit Chopra and other in the name of Rajat Chopra. Moreover, from the contents of the complaint, it reveals that Rohit Chopra and Rajat Chopra are sons of Pawan Chopra and residing in a one house and therefore, Rohit Chopra is a beneficiary and he is also using the product in question, therefore he is also Consumer, therefore the objection raised by OP having no substances in the eyes of law.
9. Now, we are coming to the issue in dispute whether there is any defect in the Washing Machine, so purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 and got checked from the Service Centre of OP No.2 and 3. No doubt, the OP No.1 in its reply, in preliminary objection in Para No.6, categorically stated that the complainant has filed this complaint on the basis of concocted story and further alleged that there is no defect in the Washing Machine of the complainant and further admitted that if there is any defect, then the OPs are ready to rectify the same if falls in the warranty. The plea taken in the preliminary objection is contradictory, the plea taken in on merits written reply, on merits in Para No.1, the OP submitted that no need for reply being matter of record, means the purchase of the LG Washing Machine, vide Invoice dated 10.06.2013 Ex.C-1 is admitted and even its extended warranty after making a consideration amount is also admitted and extended warranty is available on the file Ex.C-7 and receipt of payment of extended warranty is Ex.C-8. So, one thing is established that the product in question is under warranty till 31.08.2018.
10. So for the question of any defect in the said Washing Machine is related, the same is not obviously proved by the complainant by bringing on the file any report of the mechanic, but the allegations of the complainant as alleged in the complaint that the Job Sheet Ex.C-2 issued by the OP, despite that the Washing Machine is not working properly and even the service engineer of the OP visited to the house of the complainant, who checked the said Washing Machine, despite that the same is not still working, we find whenever any defect in the product has been brought to the notice of the OP and OP issued the Job Sheet as well as got checked the said product from its service engineer, then ball goes to the courtyard of the OP to dispel the said onus and accordingly, now onus shifted on the OP to prove that there is no defect in the Washing Machine, but in order to dispel the said onus, the OP itself failed to examine the service engineer, who visited the house of the complainant and inspected the said Washing Machine. So, from this angle, if we see the case of the complainant, then there remains no doubt that the Washing Machine, so purchased by the complainant from OP having some major defect, which is not curable and due to that reason, the service engineer of the OP despite visit to the house of the complainant failed to rectify the same. Whenever, there is any manufacturing defect in the product, then OPs are liable to replace the said product and accordingly, in this case, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
11. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the price of the product i.e. Rs.44,200/- along with the extended warranty amount of Rs.4485/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
13.11.2018 Member President
