Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/184

Sandeep Vaid - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Complainant In Person

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 184 dated 31.03.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 02.06.2022.

 

Mr. Sandeep Vaid r/o.5685/1, Street No.5, B-34, Raghubir Park, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 (mobile-9872610441)                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant 

•  

1. M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA Pvt. Ltd., A-24/6, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.  
2. M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA Pvt. Ltd. GUR(SVC)-XXI, 2633, Gill Road, Near ATI, Ludhiana, Punjab. (mobile-9711709999)                                                                                          …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,      2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sandeep Vaid in person.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he bought a front load LG Washing machine from the OPs on 22.06.2012 for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. The product carried a warranty of 10 years on its motor. However, the washing machine stopped working after 7 years causing inconvenience to the complainant. A complaint was lodged with the OPs on 23.11.2020 following which a service engineer visited and repaired the washing machine at the cost of Rs.4437/- and assured that the machine would function normally. However, the washing machine stopped working again forcing the complainant to lodge another complaint. The OP contacted the complainant on 08.12.2020 and informed that the defect in the washing machine would be rectified. The OPs further offered to pay a sum of Rs.6890/- on the condition that full washing machine should be returned to the OPs. The complainant sent a reply accepting the offer on few conditions but the OPs did not respond thereafter. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs causing great inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to repair the washing machine or replace the same with a brand new of similar model or refund the full purchase amount of Rs.36,000/- with interest @18% per annum and further the OPs be made to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the  written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous. According to the OPs, having purchased the washing machine on 22.06.2012, the complainant extensively used it for more than 8 years. The washing machine carried a standard warranty of 2 years which expired on 21.06.2014. No defect was reported during the warranty period. The complainant lodged a complaint on 23.11.2020 after more than 8 years. The complainant was duly attended and on checking, it was found that the main PCB board of the washing machine needed to be changed. As the product was out of warranty, the repair and replacement of the part was done on chargeable basis and proper receipt was issued to the complainant. After the repair, the washing machine was restored to a perfect working condition. Thereafter, the complainant again lodged a complaint in December 2020 which was also duly attended to. However, due to the problem that occurred after a short period, the service centre advised the complainant not to get the washing machine repaired as it had outlived its age and utility. In addition to that, the OPs, as a goodwill gesture, offered a depreciated refund of Rs.6890/- to the complainant but for reasons best known to him the complainant did not accept the offer. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those made in the written statement.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Rishab Kumar Jain, Branch Service Manager of OPs along with document Ex. R1 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through records.

7.                There is no dispute about the facts of the case. The washing machine was admittedly purchased by the complainant o 22.06.2012 for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. The machine carried a warranty of only 2 years while the motor of the washing machine carried warranty of 10 years. It is also not disputed that the washing machine worked properly for more than 8 years and no complaint was lodged. The complainant lodged a complaint for the first time on 23.11.2020 following which the repair was carried out at a cost of Rs.4437/-. It is the admitted case of the OPs that the main PCB board of the machine needed to be changed and it was changed. It is further not disputed that in December 2020 another complaint was lodged as the same problem recurred in the machine. However, on the second complaint, it was declared by the service engineer of the OPs that the machine was not repairable as it had outlived its age and utility. In our considered view, when the first complaint was lodged on 23.11.2020, the service engineer should not have been gone ahead with the repair as the repair carried out did not last more than a month resulting in a loss of Rs.4437/- charged on account of the repair of machine. Since the machine was not repairable any longer the OPs, vide email Annexure-C5 the OPs offered a refund of Rs.6890/- against the depreciated value of the machine which appears to be a fair offer. However, as stated above, since the repair carried out by the OPs for a cost of Rs.4437/- did not last even a month, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are made to refund the repair charges of Rs.4437/- to the complainant.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.6890/- plus Rs.4437/- to the complainant subject to handing over the machine to the OPs in its existing condition within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Sandeep Vaid Vs LG Electronics                                    CC/21/184

Present:       Complainant Sh. Sandeep Vaid in person.

                   Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.6890/- plus Rs.4437/- to the complainant subject to handing over the machine to the OPs in its existing condition within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.