Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1099/2019

Sanjay Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amarbir Dhaliwal Adv.& Gurtej Pratap Singh Sandhu Adv.

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1099/2019
Date of Institution	:	06.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	01.02.2023

 

                     

            

 

Sanjay Garg s/o Om Parkash Garg r/o House No.301, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh -160019.

...Complainant

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Office Address: Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Surajur Kasna Road, Greater Noida-201306 (UP.).

…. Opposite Party

BEFORE:
		SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Amarbir Dhaliwal, Counsel of complainant Sh.Arjun Grover, Counsel of OP.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice seeking redressal of his grievances. He stated that he had bought a LG “side by side refrigerator” Model LG GC GC-L217BTJV on 28.02.2011 for approx. Rs.70,000/- with 10 years compressor warranty. He has placed on record copy of ‘installation job sheet’ as Annexure C-1 and ‘warranty information as Annexure C-2. The complainant is facing problems with respect to its less cooling, gas problems, compressor problems right from the beginning of its purchase and it was brought into the notice of OP but the OP keep on repairing it including filling of gas, change of compressor and other parts of it. From the last 3-4 years, the complainant has been facing problems with the refrigerator every 2-3 months. But the OP neither replaced the refrigerator nor refunded its amount but keep on repairing it. Complainant placed on record copy of e-mail dated 20.05.2018 depicting the charges paid to engineer of the OP as Annexure C-4. The copy of job sheet dated 13.05.2018 and 31.07.2018 are placed on record as Annexure C-5 (Colly.). The refrigerator continued to mal function and then the ice maker assembly kit was replaced on 05.10.2019. then gas was again refilled on 07.10.2019. The last repair was conducted on 04.10.2019, 05.10.2019 and 07.10.2019 related to refrigerator gas, replacement of various parts and other repairs. However, the refrigerator never operated properly as the internal pipes have gotten blocked now. Thus, from the above facts, the complainant alleged that it is suffering from manufacturing defect, since despite it have gone through service and repeated repairs, change of body parts, change of gas and compressor etc. and it is still malfunctioning. The OP did not replace it or refunded the price amount. It caused harassment not only to him but to the whole of family for which he should be compensated by refunding the price of the product along with interest and compensation.  
2.     After service of OP, it appeared and filed its written version taking various objections including preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the material facts; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint etc. On merits, it has been admitted that on 28.02.2011, one LG “side by side refrigerator” Model LG GC GC-L217BTJV was purcahsed Sh.Sanjay Garg, which was installed vide job sheet baring No.RNA110302056836. OP admitted that on 01.10.2017, its Service Engineer visited at the place of the complainant in order to facilitate the caller/complainant. On his visit, the Service Engineer asked for the bill /invoice which the caller/complainant failed to show. Therefore, the Service Engineer closed the call and apprised the caller/complainant to again register a call with the OP whenever the caller/complainant has the bill/invoice with him. On 03.10.2017, the OP company received a threatening call from the caller/complainant vide e-mail from the complainant threatening that if OP –company would not provide him service despite the fact of not having bill with him, he would initiate a consumer complaint and the OP would lose the case. In order to avoid unnecessary litigation & to facilitate the Caller/Complainant, on 07.10.2017, sent its Service Engineer at his place vide job sheet No. RNP171006097403. On his visit the engineer diagnosed that the controller assembly/regulator needs replacement. The Service Engineer apprise the complainant that since the part which needs replacement is out of 1 year comprehensive warranty, the replacement could be done on chargeable basis as the product has 1 year comprehensive warranty and 10 years warranty including one year comprehensive warranty on the compressor.   It was replaced on charging Rs.406/- from the complainant. The product was functioning perfectly and the same was also demonstrated to the complainant upto his satisfaction. On 11.05.2018, once again the complainant complained to the OP  and on 13.05.2018, Service Engineer  went to the place of the Complainant and diagnosed that the refrigerator requires gas filling and accordingly the Service Engineer filled the gas in the refrigerator on chargeable basis. The complainant, being satisfied, also signed the job sheet.  On 20.05.2018, at 11.53 PM, the relative of the complainant sent e-mail regarding the repairs/gas filling done on 13.05.2018. The Service Engineer inspected the product and found that the refrigerator was working properly and the complainant sent this e-mail only to derive an undue advantage of having further repairs done free of cost on 31.07.2018. The complainant once again contacted the OP for problem in it and Service Engineer found that the main PCB (Printed Circuit Board) which has the main function of distributing electricity to the other parts of the refrigerator. needs replacement. It was replaced after charging Rs.4800/- on 05.08.2018. It was functioning perfectly but the complainant refused to sign the job sheet. When the Service Engineer asked for showing bill/invoice the  complainant failed to show the same and threatened him to file the consumer against OP-company. The complainant two options either to replace the part free of cost or refund the whole price of the product. The OP to avoid frivolous litigation and also as a goodwill gesture, replaced the ice maker controller regulator free of cost on 05.10.2019. The complainant duly signed the job sheet being fully satisfied on 06.11.2019, complainant filed frivolous complaint against OP. On Merits, OP denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
4.     We have heard the Counsel of the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.
5.     The main issue involved in the present complaint is whether the refrigerator in question malfunction during its warranty period or not?
6.     It is an admitted fact that the complainant purcahsed refrigerator in question on 2802.2011. OP admitted in para 9 of its preliminary submissions of its written version that Mr.Sanjay Garg purcahsed one (side by side 500 ltr.  & over) refrigerator bearing Model GC-L217BTJV on 28.02.2011. It is also admitted fact that refrigerator has 10 years compressor warranty. Moreover, complainant placed on file copy of warranty as Annexure C-2 wherein it is mentioned “Linear Compressor (selected Models only) warranty of ten (10) years from the date of original retail purchase. So, OP gave ten years warranty on selected models only, vide which complainant was entitled to warranty of ten years of compressor being purchaser of selected model for an amount of approximately Rs.70,000/-.
7.     It is also admitted fact that OP-Company installed the refrigerator at the residence of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant placed on record copy of ‘installation job sheet’ as Annexure C-1 which not only proves that refrigerator in question was installed by OP-Company but also that ‘customer name’ was Sanjay Garg i.e. complainant.
8.     It was alleged that the said refrigerator was giving problems of less cooling, gas problems, compressor problems etc. from the very beginning of its purchase. It was also alleged that said refrigerator has been repaired number of times including filling of gas, changing compressor and other parts by OP but the problem always reoccurs and from the last 3-4 years the complainant has been facing problems with it within every 2-3 months.
9.     Complainant alleged that despite repeated requests, the OP did not redress his grievances. He placed on record e-mail dated 03.10.2017 sent to the OP, which is reproduced as under:_

  “We had purchased a side by side doors refrigerator with 10 year guarantee on compressor. In the year 2011-12. We have misplaced the bill but date of manufacture can very well be ascertained by the company from model no GC-L217BTJV serial No. 101TRWA00025. If the 10 years have not elapsed from the date of manufacture, the company is bound to provide guarantee service. But the customer care service is insisting on bill. This is wrong and illegal. The product is of LG and it is within warranty period even from the date of manufacture. We are your valuable customers. Do not lose your reputation by illegal and false excuses. You will otherwise lose the case in consumer court, pl. fulfill your obligation.”

 

 

 

 

10.     That after usage of the product for approximately 6 years and 8 months, the caller/Complainant on 01.10.2017, contacted the OP Company vide job sheet bearing No. RNP171001085939, for some issue in the product. In response, the OP Company immediately sent its service engineer at the place of the Complainant in order to facilitate the caller/Complainant. On his visit the service engineer asked for the bill/invoice which the caller/complainant failed to show. Therefore, the service engineer closed the call and apprised the Caller/Complainant to again register a call with the Op Company whenever the Caller/Complainant has the bill/invoice with him.
11.     Now the question arises, whether Service Engineer was justified to refuse to provide service on the ground complainant failed to show bill/invoice to him.
12.     The refrigerator in question have 10 years warranty on compressor being a selected model of refrigerator worth Rs.70,000/-.If a consumer have misplaced the bill/invoice then instead of compelling him to show/produce the same, it could be easily ascertained by the company from  model no GC-L217BTJV, Serial No. 101TRWA00025 and also from particulars mentioned in “installation job sheet’ wherein the name of the customer is clearly mentioned ‘Sanjay Garg’ and further for warranty card provided by OP to the complainant. So instead of compelling the customer for showing/producing bill/invoice, the Service Engineer and company should have made genuine efforts to help out their prestigious customers. The callous attitude of the Service Engineer and company is outrightly condemnable. It is wrong and against the fundamental rights of the consumer. Moreover, OP-Company should help out the consumer by ascertaining the same which could be done easily have there been a sincere effort to that effect. Hence, OP is hereby directed not to repeat this mistake in future. If any consumer has misplaced or lost its bill/invoice then don’t compel him/her to produce or show the same but help him out by providing him/her the required service and also ascertain it by the company from its sources i.e. company’s record or from record of it’s dealer and provide its duplicate copy to the consumer, free of cost.
13. The complainant alleged that he is facing the problems with respect to it’s less cooling, gas problems, compressor problems right from the beginning of its purchase and it was brought into the notice of OP but the OP keep on repairing it including filling of gas, change of compressor and other parts of it. The complainant placed on record copy of e-mail dated 20.05.2018 depicting the charges paid to engineer of the OP as Annexure C-4. The copy of job sheet dated 13.05.2018 and 31.07.2018 are placed on record as Annexure C-5 (Colly.). The refrigerator continued to mal- function and then the ice maker assembly kit was replaced on 05.10.2019. then gas was again refilled on 07.10.2019. The last repair was conducted on 04.10.2019, 05.10.2019 and 07.10.2019 related to refrigerator gas, replacement of various parts and other repairs. The complainant has also placed Annexures C-6 to C-8 in support of the aforesaid averments. Thus, the complainant alleged that the refrigerator is suffering from manufacturing defect, since despite it have gone through service and repeated repairs, change of body parts, change of gas and compressor etc. and it is still malfunctioning. The OP did not replace it or refunded the price amount.
14.     The OP admitted that on 03.10.2017 (Annexure C-3), the OP company received a threatening call from the caller/complainant vide e-mail that if OP–company would not provide him service despite the fact of not having bill with him, he would initiate a consumer complaint and the OP would lose the case. In order to avoid unnecessary litigation & to facilitate the Caller/Complainant, on 07.10.2017, sent its Service Engineer at his place vide job sheet No. RNP171006097403 (Annexure R-1). The engineer diagnosed that the controller assembly/regulator needs replacement. It was replaced on charging Rs.406/- from the complainant. The product was functioning perfectly and the same was also demonstrated to the complainant upto his satisfaction. On 13.05.2018, the Service Engineer  after inspection of the refrigerator diagnosed that the refrigerator requires gas filling and accordingly the Service Engineer filled the gas in the refrigerator on chargeable basis. The complainant, being satisfied, also signed the job sheet (Annexure C-5 Colly.).  The Service Engineer inspected the product and found that the refrigerator was working properly and the complainant sent this e-mail only to derive an undue advantage of having further repairs done free of cost on 31.07.2018. The complainant once again contacted the OP for problem in the refrigerator and the Service Engineer found that the main PCB (Printed Circuit Board) which has the main function of distributing electricity to the other parts of the refrigerator needs replacement. It was replaced after charging Rs.4800/- on 05.08.2018. It was functioning perfectly but the complainant refused to sign the job sheet (Annexure C-5 Colly.). To avoid frivolous litigation and also as a goodwill gesture, the oP replaced the ice maker controller regulator free of cost on 05.10.2019. The complainant duly signed the job sheet being fully satisfied on 06.11.2019.
15.     After every service, OP is writing that thereafter, the product had been functioning perfectly. Had the product been functioning properly then no occasion of repeated repairs has accrued and instead of repeated repairs, the product would have been working well. So it is clear that OP failed to rectify the defects in the refrigerator despite many repairs and it is mal functioning on one account or other. The complainant instead of enjoying its benefits is facing harassment time and again. Therefore, it is held that OP remained deficient in rendering adequate services to the complainant and it created harassment not only to the complainant but also to his wife who was also writing e-mails to repair the defective refrigerator. Hence OP is liable to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant and his family.
16.     The OP placed on record one certificate No.LG-08-10-2019 as Annexure R-2, which is reproduced as under:-

 

“Subject: Engineer/TSC Visit certificate

 

TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN

 

    I Tribhuwan Singh, S/O Sh. Duwar Singh Bisht, Engineer of LG Electronics Direct service center Chandigarh Certify that the product was checked by me at Customer home on 5th Oct. 2019. I diagnosed that Ice maker assembly needs to change and same was replaced with new one. After that product was working fine and which was also demonstrate to customer up to his satisfaction.”

        This certificate proves that ice maker assembly needs to change and same was replaced with new one. It correspondent with the allegation of the complainant that refrigerator is not functioning smoothly but remains defective and non-functional on one occasion or other and keep on giving problems within every 2-3 months. It also states that ‘product is working fine’ to the satisfaction of customer but complainant grievance is that manufacturer/service provider fails to rectify the defectives in refrigerator despite many repairs. So this certificate goes in favour of the complainant as it proves his version that defects keep on occurring despite repair and replacement and the refrigerator has become useless and he ultimately purcahsed new refrigerator having no other option.

17.     OP relied upon the order dated 15.07.2019 passed in CC No.626/2018-Chanchal Vs. Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and Others, decided by this Commission and para 6 of the said order reads as under:-

“6.     In the instant case, the complainant has alleged to have purchased the product in question from OP No.3 but he has not been able to adduce on record the photocopy of the invoice of the product in question and in the absence of the same, it cannot be concluded that he has paid any consideration for the purchase of the product in question to OP No.3 or he is the beneficiary with the approval of the purchaser. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer qua the OPs as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

         The findings of the above mentioned order are not applicable in the present complaint because in above mentioned complaint, the complainant failed to prove on file that he purcahsed the product in dispute but in the complaint in hand, the OP itself admitted in para 9 of the preliminary submissions of the written version that Mr.Sanjay Garg purcahsed one “side by side refrigerator bearing Model No.GC-L217BTJV on 28.02.2011. So the question of complainant not being consumer of OP does not arise at all in the present complaint.

18.     Similarly, the facts of Appeal No.227/2017-Smt.Meena Vs. LG Customer Care and Others are not applicable because in the above stated case, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh held that complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or that OP adopted unfair trade practice but in the present case, complainant proved on file that Service Engineer  of OP refused to attend complaint filed by complainant on the ground that he failed to show ‘bill/invoice’ to Service Engineer despite the fact it can easily be ascertained from the record of OP or its dealer and further from the ‘installation job sheet’ (Annexure C-1) which clearly proves that ‘Customer Name’ was Sanjay Garg. Hence it is wrong and against the spirt of consumer rights because duty of Service Engineer is to provide service to the complainant and not to harass him by compelling him to show bill/invoice especially when he can ascertain the same from record of company or from the record of its dealer when complainant has provided him model No.GC-L217BTJV serial No. 101TRWA00025  and the product is under warranty period. Further e-mail dated 20.05.2018 proves that complainant specifically mentioned in it ‘very poor service’. Similarly, job sheet dated 31.07.20118 bearing neither the signatures of complainant nor any person on his behalf and the place for customer signature is left blank. Moreover, at the column of engineer, there is just one initial of some person but neither name of engineer mentioned nor its qualification which also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. In nutshell, the judgments relied upon by the OP are not applicable to the present case.
19.     The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Scooters India Ltd. Vs. Madhabananda Mohanty & Ors (R.P.No.240 of 2002, decided on 07.02.2003), made the following points:-

  a)   If the vehicle is defective, a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. However, it must be shown that the use of the vehicle has been substantially impaired on account of the defects. On the other hand, if the defects are insignificant that could not be a case of replacement or refund.

           In the present case, the use of refrigerator  has been substantially impaired on account of the defects. The defects are significant and they could not be cured by OP despite many efforts to that effect. Hence, it is a fit case for replacement or refund. As the parties have lost faith in each other, so replacement may not solve the required purpose, therefore, refund of paid price will be suitable order. 

20.     Moreover, in Vinoo Bhagat vs General Motors (India) Ltd & anr. (FA No.150 of 1998, order dated Jan. 30, 2003), the Apex Consumer Court put two conditions for ordering refund or replacement:-

1. If the car is defective and its use is substantially impaired and
2. the manufacturer/dealers fails to rectify the defect despite reasonable opportunity given for it.

            This judgment is even more applicable in the case in hand because the refrigerator is defective and its use is substantially impaired and the manufacturer /dealer/service provider fails to rectify the defect despite many opportunities given for it. 

21.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed to:-

1.     refund the price of the refrigerator in question i.e. Rs.70,000/-  to the complainant. 
2.     pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension and physical harassment.
3.     pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.

22.     This order be complied with by the OP, within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of its actual refund of payment besides compliance of other directions.
23.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
24.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 01/02/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER