Delhi

North East

CC/36/2020

Sh. Yogesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 36/20

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Yogesh Kumar S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar R/o H. No. 35 D Pocket B, DDA Flats west Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Complainant
		Versus
	1.           2.	Electronic Craft B 4, Kanti Nagar Extn., Near Welcome Metro Station Delhi-110051   LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. A 24/6, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044   Also at:- LG India Head Office Plot No, 51, Surajpur-Kasna Road, UdyogVihar, Greater Noida, U. P 201306   Also at:- LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. A Wing 3rd Floor D 3, District Center Saket New Delhi-110017		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		14.09.20 29.11.23 18.01.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a split AC Model No. KSQ18ENZA (Indoor + outdoor Unit 5 star) from Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs. 42,000/- on 07.04.19. The Complainant stated that the at the time of purchase, the Opposite Party No.1 did not informed Complainant about the installation charges and told that total price of AC with all taxes is Rs. 42,000/- and further the Opposite Party No.1 gave the model of year 2018. On 08.04.19 two persons came from Opposite Party No.2 for the installation of the AC and informed about the charges of       Rs. 7,056/- for installation as well as other charges then Complainant talked to Opposite Party No.1 and said to return AC but Opposite Party No.1 denied. On 12.03.20 the Complainant registered the address shifted request and AC service request to Opposite Party No.2 and informed about the AC is not cooling properly. On 17.03.20 two persons came from Opposite Party No.2 and installed the AC against Rs. 1,600/- then the Complainant asked to check the AC cooling and service but they refused to checked and said we do only installation of AC and after one week when Complainant checked the AC, he got shocked to see that the AC was not cooling and giving only normal air. It is stated that after unlock of National lockdown Complainant informed Opposite Party No.2 customer care on 09.06.20 about cooling problem with request no. RNP200609087409 and the Complainant also came to know that warranty of AC had been extended to 14.06.20. On 11.06.20 one person came to Complainant and informed that gas of said AC is leaked as the persons did not install the said AC correctly. On 13.06.20 two person came to Complainant and refill the gas and Complainant told that service of said AC is pending but they told that they will only fill gas in said AC and refused to service the said AC. Thereafter Complainant registered complaint dated 13.06.20. The Complainant stated that AC is not working so Complainant lodged another complaint on 14.06.20 vide complaint no. RNP200615097851. On 16.06.20 Complainant again registered complaint to Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 intentionally closed complaint without checking the said AC. It is stated that thereafter Complainant lodged complaint to Opposite Party No.2 on various dates vide different RNP numbers but all in vain. On 10.07.20 Complainant lodged complaint on consumer helpline.gov.in via grievance no. 2105318 and Opposite Party No.2 replied on 23.07.20 that part has been replaced now unit is fine working while the Complainant already registered after the compressor changed to the Opposite Party No.2 that the same problem is again coming. On 15.07.20 a person came from Opposite Party No.2 and changed the PCB of the AC but the AC was not worked after the PCB changed and the person again said your PCB is OK but the compressor is not working of your AC and told to Complainant your compressor will be changed soon while the person already visited but he could not catch the problem. On 22.07.20 a person from Opposite Party No.2 came and changed compressor of said AC and refill the gas and Complainant paid      Rs. 1,249/- and Opposite Party No.1 promised Complainant that warranty of new compressor is 10 years and Opposite Party No.2 collected Rs. 1,249/- and they cheated the Complainant by hiding compressor warranty details. On 23.07.20 Complainant’s AC stopped working and Complainant again lodged complaint vide no. RNP200723023207 and company closed the complaint thereafter Complainant again lodged complaint on 24.07.20. The Complainant stated that on 25.07.20 and on 26.07.20 two different persons visited Complainant and gave different statements regarding compressor and its warranty. On 06.08.20 Complainant register complaint and official of Opposite Party No.2 told Complainant that compressor is not working and on 12.08.20 compressor of said AC was replaced and gas was again filled by two persons of Opposite Party No.2. On 15.08.20 said AC stopped working and Complainant again lodged complaint on 16.08.20. The Complainant lodged many complaints request to Opposite Party but the problem in said AC was not rectified. The Complainant sent legal notice Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 dated 28.07.20 but the Opposite Parties ignored the same and did not reply till date. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and replacement of the defective AC from the new AC towards claim of reimbursement along with 18 % interest from the date of June 2020 till payment and compensation with respect to all the sufferings to the Complainant.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.1 stated that we are only the sales dealer of LG electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and the services related to repairs & warranty is provided by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd which is also clearly mentioned on the Invoice no. R95 dated 07.04.2019 of the Complainant that “Warranties & service obligation are manufacturers liability and responsibility” it is already on record that warranty card of the product was issued by the LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and they are already providing the services to the Complainant on his complaint in accordance to the terms and conditions of warranty.
3. It is specifically denied that the Complainant was not told about installation charges of the AC in question. It is further submitted that at the time of purchase of AC Complainant was informed about all the charges, particulars, detailed information and terms and conditions of uses as per guidelines by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd to its sales dealers as the AC unit is installed by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. appointed service centre and the installation money is paid to the service entre Works Admirer in this case and not to us as we are only the sales contact point for consumer. It is submitted that the Complainant was aware about all the charges regarding the purchase and installation of AC in question. It is also submitted that at the time of purchase Complainant himself decided the model of Ac in question.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

4. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 stated that the Complainant purchased the said AC on 07.04.19 and enjoyed the AC more than one year without any hindrance. It is pertinent to mention here that being a well-qualified person, the Complainant was fully aware of the product and purchased it according to his requirement. It is submitted that after enjoying full summer season, the Complainant made first complaint on 09.06.20 regarding non cooling of the product in question. Consequently, the executive of the Opposite Party No.2 visited to the premises of the Complainant and inspected the same, however no major defect was found, only gas refilling required. To make the product in question fine working condition, the said executive of the Opposite Party No.2 filled gas free of cost. Thereafter the AC started working efficiently and the executive left the premises with full satisfaction of the Complainant.
5. That after a few days the Complainant again made complaint alleging the same problem, the service engineer of the Opposite Party No.2 promptly acted and visited the premises of the Complainant and re-examined the product in question and did needful minor repairs for the satisfaction of the Complainant without any default, moreover after that to satisfy other complaints of the same, some parts of the product in question are also changed, however the Complainant was not satisfied, hence, the Opposite Party No.2 offered the Complainant for replacement of the product but for the same was refused by the Complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that instead of only replacement by new one, the Complainant was demanding exorbitant and unreasonable demand along with a new AC, which cannot be accepted in terms of limited warranty.
6. At the outset, it can be seen that the allegations levelled by the Complainant are false and there is no deficiency of service on part of the Opposite Party No.2.
7. It is specifically denied that the Complainant was not told about installation charges of the AC in question. It is submitted that the Complainant was aware about all the charges regarding the purchase and installation of AC in question. It is further submitted that at the time of purchase of AC Complainant was informed about all the charges, particulars, detailed information and terms and condition of uses as per guidelines by Opposite Party No.2.
8. It is specifically denied that Opposite Party gave 2018 model of AC in question to the Complainant without informing the Complainant. It is submitted that at the time of purchase Complainant himself decided the model of AC in question.
9. It is submitted that as per the record of the Opposite Party No.2 there was no complaint made by the Complainant on 12.03.20 as falsely alleged and there was no service render to the Complainant on 17.03.20.
10. It is submitted that as per the record of the Opposite Party No.2 no one visited from Opposite Party to render service to the Complainant on 13.06.2020 as falsely alleged.
11. It is further submitted that on complaint made by the Complainant regarding issue of cooling in his AC in question vide receipt no. RNP200617093457 on 17.06.2020, by taking action on the same one of Opposite Party qualified service engineer visited the Complainant premises but the Complainant was not there thereafter service engineer of Opposite Party No.2 called the Complainant, but the Complainant told the service engineer that “he will call him again later”.
12. It is submitted that the complaint made by the Complainant vide receipt No. RNP200623008430, taking action on the same Opposite Party’s service engineer visited the Complainant premises for service but the Complainant refused to take the same as stating that the service was taken already through locals and unauthorized service centre.
13. It is further submitted that on complaint made by the Complainant regarding his AC in question vide receipt no. RNP200709024023, taking action on the same service engineer visited the Complainant premises, after inspection of the said AC, he found PCB of the AC in question is defective and confirmed the same to the Complainant thereafter service engineer asked for repair of the defective PCB as the AC in question was out of warranty Complainant refused to pay the charges for restoration of PCB.
14. It is humbly submitted that on complaint made by the Complainant regarding his AC vide receipt no. RNP200711003121 dated 11.07.2020, taking action on the same service engineer Khan Mushaid of Opposite Party No.2 visited the Complainant’s premises, after diagnose, he found compressor part faulty and replaced the same thereafter the AC was working fine.
15. It is further submitted on complaint lodged by the Complainant vide receipt no. RNP200723023207 dated 23.07.2020, service engineer of Opposite Party No.2 visited the Complainant premises for service but the Complainant neither picked up the calls nor answered any SMS. It is further submitted that on complaint made by the Complainant vide receipt no. RNP200724057532 dated 24.07.2020, representative of Opposite Party No.2 explained the Complainant about the replacement of the AC in question but he refused for the same.
16. It is specifically denied that the Opposite Party ignored the legal notice sent by Complainant. It is submitted that after receiving of legal notice, Opposite Party duly talked to the Complainant and offered the Complainant again for replacement of the AC in question but the Complainant refused for the same, demanded exorbitant and unreasonable demand along with a new AC, which cannot be accepted by the Opposite Party No.2.
17. It is submitted that as per the record of the Opposite Party No.2 no one visited from Opposite Party to render service to the Complainant on 12.08.2020 as falsely alleged.
18. It is submitted that on complaint made by the Complainant regarding his AC vide receipt no. RNP200816088232 dated 16.08.2020, taking action on the same, service engineer of Opposite Party No.2 visited the Complainant’s premises for service but the Complainant was not there, thereafter the service engineer called the Complainant but the Complainant neither answered the call nor call back. It is humbly submitted that on complaints made by the Complainant many time regarding his AC in question and taking action on the same as treated as special case Opposite Party No.2 service engineer immediately visited the Complainant premises to check and resolve the issue of AC in question which was done but after so many visits and repairs Opposite Party No.2 offered the Complainant for replacement of the product but for the same he refused and instead of replacement Complainant was demanding exorbitant and unreasonable demand which cannot be accepted in terms of limited warranty.

Rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties

19. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

20. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

21. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.1 filed affidavit of Sh. Rochak Arora, Partner of Opposite Party No.1, and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Sh. Ajayan, AR of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

22. We have heard the Complainant in person and the Ld. Counsels for Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a split AC from Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 on 07.04.19. On 08.04.19 representative of Opposite Party No.2 came for installation of AC in his premises and informed about installation charges which was not told to him at the time of purchase of said AC. On 13.03.20 Complainant shifted his residence and said AC was installed in his new premises. On 09.06.20 Complainant made a complaint with Opposite Party regarding cooling problem in the said AC same was attended by the representative of Opposite Party No.2 and gas was filled. Complainant again made complaint to the Opposite Party No.2 regarding non cooling of AC and the  same was not properly attended by the Opposite Party.  The representative of Opposite Party replace the compressor of the said AC even after that said AC was not working properly. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
23.  The case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that they are merely a sales dealer of the Opposite Party No.2 and his service related to repair and warranty is provided by Opposite Party No.2 which was clearly mentioned in the sale invoice given to the Complainant. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that at the time of the purchase Complainant was informed about installation charges of AC in question.
24.  The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the Complainant purchased the AC in question on 07.04.19 and enjoyed the said AC more than one year without any hindrance. Complainant made his complaint on 09.06.20 regarding non cooling of the product in question. On receipt of the complaint representative of Opposite Party No.2 visited the premises of the Complainant and inspected the same and no major defect was found only gas filling was required. To make the product in question working condition, the representative of the Opposite Party No.2 filled gas free of cost. Thereafter the AC started working efficiently. After few days Complainant again made a complaint regarding non cooling of the AC, the service engineer of the Opposite Party No.2 visited the premises of the Complainant and examined the product in question and did needful to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Even after the service of the AC, the Complainant was not satisfied hence, the Opposite Party No.2 offered the Complainant for replacement of the product but for the same was refused by the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant made various complaints regarding AC in question which was promptly attended by the Opposite Party since warranty of the AC was expired after one year of the purchase, Complainant was told to pay required service charges and cost of the parts of the said AC which was refused by the Complainant. Since Opposite Party No.2 promptly attended all complaints made by the Complainant regarding non functioning of the said AC. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.
25. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion there is no deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.  
26.  Order announced on 18.01.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President