SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The case of the Complainant, in brief, as follows. :-

Complainant purchased a Frost Free Refrigerator (Model No. GN-M702HLHMAPZQEBN) on 09.05.2015 against payment of Rs. 63,850/- from OP-5 M/s Swar Sangam, an authorized dealer of OPs 1 & 2 L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Complainant faced frequent problems and the OPs replaced the subject Refrigerator of the same Model being No. GN-M702HLHMAPZQEBN against Invoice dated 25.05.2015. Subject Refrigerator again faced frequent occurrence of problems. complaint of problem was reported to the OPs 1 & 2 over Toll Free Numbers, technician of the OPs 1 & 2 visited the residence of the complainant and carried out repairs but problem continued. The service team were unable to repair the Refrigerator due to its manufacturing defect and day to day the defect is increasing. In spite of much efforts and repeated complaints the defect door of the Refrigerator could not be resolved.

Further case of the complainant is that the subject Refrigerator stopped functioning since 02.06.2017 and complaint was lodged to L.G. Customer Care Service, Engineer of OPs 1 to 4 inspected the subject Refrigerator on 03.06.2017 and informed that compressor have to be replaced. Ultimately compressor was replaced on payment of Rs. 632.50 though warranty of the compressor is 10 years but defect cannot removed. Finding no other alternative, Complainant wrote letters dated 21.06.207 and 05.10.2017 as well as E-mail dated 12.07.2017 requesting the OPs to refund Rs. 63,850/- being the price of the Refrigerator against replacement of defective Refrigerator but such letters and E-mail were unattended. Against legal notice dated 30.10.2017 Mr. Pritheswas Das, Area Service Manager of OPs 1 to 4 offered to replace the Refrigerator but failed to comply their offer.

Hence, the Complainant  has approached this Forum by way of Consumer complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.

OPs 1 to 4 have contested the case by filing a joint W.V to challenge the maintainability of the case on various grounds. The specific case of the answering OPs is that Complainant purchased a Frost Free Refrigerator being Model No. GN-M702HLHMAPZQEBN, Serial No. 503INJLOE852 from OP-5 M/s Swar Sangam, an authorized dealer of L.G. Electronics, there is a defect in the refrigerator and replaced a new refrigerator being Model No. GN-M702HLHMAPZQEBN, Serial No. 503INYDOH818 in place of defective refrigerator. The replacement refrigerator was running very well throughout 2015, 2016 and in the middle part of 2017, there was some problem in the refrigerator. The subject refrigerator was attended by their Executives who found there is water leakage problem between the doors and such problem was solved. Compressor was replaced without any cost but labour charge of Rs. 635/- was taken. The answering OPs offered the Complainant to replace of a refrigerator after deduction of 45  percent as depreciation from the cost of the subject refrigerator according to the policy of the company as the Complainant used the subject refrigerator for about 2 years 5 months. Thus, the answering the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

In spite of service of notice the OP-5 did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has proceeded exparte against OP-5.

Decision with Reasons

The Complainant and OPs 1 to 4 led evidence through affidavit in support of their respective case. We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the parties and have gone through the evidence as well as documents on record.

There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum of purchase of one Frost Free Refrigerator, Model No. GN-M702HLHMAPZQEBN having 546 liters capacity by the Complainant, for personal use, on 09.05.2015 from OP-5 (Dealer) vide tax invoice , copy whereof is Annexure-A for an amount of Rs. 63,850/- within the short period the Refrigerator caused frequent problems. This fact is also admitted and the OPs replaced the Refrigerator of same Model being No. GN-702HLHMAPZQEBN against invoice dated 25.05.2015 on the  same terms and conditions including warranty also. Subject Refrigerator was not working properly and Complainant lodged complaint regarding defects in the Refrigerator, and the same was attended to, by the Engineers of OPs 1 to 4. Complainant further alleged that compressor of the Refrigerator in question, was not working properly, and, as per terms and conditions of warranty, the same should be replaced by the OPs 1 to 4. The OPs replaced the compressor free of cost against labour charge of Rs. 635/- . It is also true that the Executive of the OPs 1 to 4 attended the complaint as and when docket.

There is also no dispute that in spite of replacement of compressor defect could not removed. Therefore, it means that after 10.06.2017 the Complainant could not use the Refrigerator. The Complainant purchased the Refrigerator, for using the same for various purpose, but he was deprived of using the same since 10.06.2017. Thus, the Refrigerator is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect.

The Ld. Advocate appearing for the contested OPs has contended that the grievance of the Complainant, was redressed and the OPs offered the complaint to replace a new one after deduction  of  45  percent depreciation as per policy  of the company from the cost of the subject Refrigerator and according to the choise of the Complainant and he had to pay the rest of the money to the OPs. It is true that the Refrigerator was purchased on 09.05.2015, it was replaced on 25.05.2015 and compressor was replaced on 10.06.2017. The subject Refrigerator stopped working since 02.06.2017. Thus, the Refrigerator is two years old. OPs failed to produce any document to establish that there is a policy of the OP company to deduct depreciation to the extent of 45 percent from the value of the Refrigerator. It is not the case of the parties that due to mishandling the Refrigerator became defective and therefore, the OPs cannot be held responsible for such defect. We are constrained to hold that the contested OPs have not properly checked the Refrigerator, for which, they should held responsible being the manufacturer. Complainant used the subject Refrigerator for about two years for which depreciation should be deducted to the extent of 30  percent from Rs. 63,850/- i.e. the value of the subject Refrigerator.

            Refrigerator stopped working since 02.06.2017. Complainant purchased the Refrigerator, for a sum of Rs. 63,850/- for using the same, for his comfortable living, but is unable to use the same, as it became defective. It is settled principle of law, that, compensation should be commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, and injustice caused to the consumer. In our considered opinion, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the Complainant, as deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OPs 1 to 4 is not any way excessive.

Coming to the litigation costs, in our considered opinion Rs. 5,000/- is not excessive as the OPs did not replace the Refrigerator after 02.06.2017 when it  stopped working. As such, the Complainant had left no other alternative but to file the instant case on 01.02.2018. The Complainant has also engaged Advocate, for filing the Consumer complaint, and prosecuting the same. For engaging the Advocate, to file the complaint and prosecuting the same, the Complainant must have paid him the fees. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- is reasonable.

            In views of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds in part.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OPs 1 to 4 with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- and also dismissed exparte against the OP-5 without any cost.

The OPs 1 to 4 are directed to refund Rs. 44,695/- only to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order along with litigation cost.

OPs 1 to 4 are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- only to the Complainant for causing harassment, mental pain and agony within the stipulated period.

Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order into execution, if the OP transgress to comply the order.