Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/510

Deepak Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Manoj Lekhi Adv.

11 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 510 of 14.07.2016

   Date of Decision            :   11.05.2017

 

Deepak Chopra aged 45 years son of Shri Bhagirath Nath Chopra, resident of B-X-392, Gali Shri Durga Vishkarma Mandir, Neem Wala Chowk, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.LG Electronics India Pvt. Limited,. (Head Office) Plot No.51, Surajpur, Kasha Road, Greater Noida-201310 (Udyog Vihar).

2.New Endovision Electronics, Branch Office Ansal Plaza, Annexe Building, Near Khushi Ram Sweets, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         Sh.Manoj Lekhi, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant Sh.Deepak Chopra, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs by claiming that he believing on representation of OP2, purchased LG refrigerator for personal use on 27.5.2015 vide invoice No.4753 and bill No.4429. Due to defect in the product, the company replaced the same and issued new bill No.4753 of replaced product. Since from the date of installation of the refrigerator, it was making noise and even the stored vegetables there in were used to be damaged. All this used to happen due to manufacturing defect. Refrigerator used to emit extra cooling and freezing of the water in the part, in which, cheese used to be kept for due preservation used to take place. Freshness of the vegetables used to be lost on very second day, though   they were used to be kept in proper place in the shelf. Complainant visited OP2 numerous times, but despite checking of the refrigerator, problem remained in it as it was used to be earlier. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint through customer care number and then an engineer visited the house of the complainant. Though, said engineer did some work, but problem restarted again after some days. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaints through emails on 17.5.2016 and 25.5.2016. Complainants through toll free number 18003159999 even were lodged on 7.4.2016, 8.4.2016, 11.4.2016, 12.4.2016, 14.4.2016, 15.4.2016, 18.4.2016, 19.4.2016, 9.5.2016, 10.5.2016, 11.5.2016, 18.5.2016, 20.5.2016 and 21.5.2016. Despite all this, needful not done. It is claimed that supplied refrigerator is having manufacturing defect and complainant is not satisfied with its working because refrigerator still making noise and damaging the vegetables, owing to which complainant is sustaining loss. Even registered legal notice dated 26.5.2016 was sent to Ops through counsel and as such, by pleading deficiency in service, prayer made for directing Ops to replace the refrigerator in question with new one of the same brand and model, free of costs and free from manufacturing defect. Compensation of Rs.500/- for physical as well as mental pain, but litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                OP2 is ex-parte in this case, but OP1 filed written statement by claiming interalia as if complainant is not entitled for any relief because of concealment of material and true facts; complaint filed for misusing the process of law; no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant because there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. Admittedly, the refrigerator in question is second sale because Op2 deals in IInd hand product/minor defected/damaged product of OP1 and of other companies. Refrigerator in question is working properly and giving due cooling and ice formation. Other parameters even were found normal, when the technical service engineer visited the complainant premises on 18.5.2016. In vegetable box, the temperature was +6 degree, but in middle shelf +2.6 degree and in convertible box shelf, it was +1.8 degree. This temperature was as per standard specifications of the company. Copy of job sheet dated 18.5.2016 alleged to be produced along with the written statement. Thereafter, complainant never lodged any complaint with OP1 regarding any kind of problem in the refrigerator. So, complainant alleged to have concealed the facts. Admittedly, the refrigerator in question was purchased on 27.5.2015, but the complainant was fully satisfied with the working and performance of the refrigerator at the time of installation. No complaint was lodged till 17.5.2016, but the service engineer visited the house of complainant on 18.5.2016 for finding no defect in the refrigerator. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. Obligation of OP1 under warranty is to set right the refrigerator by repairing or replacing the defective parts only within one year of its purchase because warranty was for one year only subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty card. No legitimate ground set out for replacement or refund of the price of the refrigerator. No expert evidence even produced for proving the claim. Replacement is permissible only, where the developed defect during period of warranty found to be of such a nature that it cannot be cured or repaired. No such defect exists in the refrigerator in question. OP1 or its service centre after sale has never denied the service and even they are ready to provide services to the complainant till date, but subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty. Complaint alleged to be filed with malafide intention.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents EX.C1 to Ex.C6 and Mark-A to Mark-H and then he along with his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Sucha Singh, Branch Service Manager of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd along with document Ex.R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Undisputedly, after going through invoice Ex.C4 and pleadings of the parties, it is made out that earlier supplied refrigerator was replaced with new one on 27.5.2015 and that is why, bill of zero charged amount Ex.C4 dated 27.5.2015 was issued.  In Ex.C4 itself, mention regarding return of the earlier LG refrigerator made. So, it is obvious that refrigerator supplied in lieu of earlier defective one on 27.5.2015. Warranty period is admittedly for one year and as such, warranty to lapse on 26.5.2016. After going through complaint, it is made out that the complaints regarding making of noise by the refrigerator or of extra cooling or of freezing of water in the shelf, where the cheese to be stacked started to be lodged from 7.4.2016 onwards to 25.5.2016. So, virtually, the complaints regarding defects started to be lodged about one month and twenty days prior to the lapse of the warranty period.

7.                Contentious issue remains as to whether the refrigerator in question working properly or not. It is the contention of Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate  representing OP1 that refrigerator in question was found in perfect working condition by  the service engineer, who visited the premises of OP1 on 18.5.2016. Dispute regarding visit of service engineer on 18.5.2016 is not there at all. Ex.R1 is the job sheet dated 18.5.2016 produced on record to establish that Sh.Amrinder Singh, Engineer visited the premises of complainant on 24.5.2016 and found the temperature reading in vegetable box as +6.6 degree Celsius, but on convertible box shelf as +1.8 degree Celsius and of middle shelf box as +2.8 degree Celsius. This temperature reading is as per standard specifications and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for OP1 that no fault in the refrigerator was found by the service engineer visiting the premises of complainant on 24.5.2016. No report of expert to contradict this report has been produced by the complainant and as such, keeping in view the contents of Ex.R1, it has to be held that refrigerator in question was found in OK condition on 24.5.2016 by the service engineer, who visited the house of the complainant.

8.                Mark-A to Mark-H are printouts of SMS messages sent by the complainant or received by him from Ops to show that the complaints lodged by him remained under process during period from 7^th April to 21^st May. If that be the position, then certainly complainant had to suffer for more than one month and fourteen days i.e. the period during which, though complaints lodged, but they kept in processing mode. On account of this, complainant bound to suffer mental harassment and agony and as such, he is entitled for compensation.

9.                It is also contended by counsel for complainant that despite issue of legal notice Ex.C1 through registered post, in respect of which, postal receipts Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 are produced on record, defects not removed and as such, complainant entitled for the replacement of refrigerator in question with new one. However, replacement of refrigerator in question with new one is not permissible until it is shown that defects     are of such a nature, which cannot be cured or repaired at all. OP1 able to prove on record report Ex.R1 of Engineer to establish that refrigerator was duly functioning on 24.5.2016 and as such, it was for the complainant to establish that product remained un-repairable or repair required cannot be carried out. No evidence has been produced by the complainant to establish that product in question cannot be repaired at all or the defects cannot be removed at all. So, by keeping in view the terms and conditions of the warranty, certainly complainant not entitled for the replacement of the product in question with new one or for refund of the price of the product, particularly when defects developed after more than 10 months of the replacement of the earlier defective product on 27.5.2015.

10.              Ex.C5 is the email correspondence dated 17.5.2016 showing as if the complainant lodged protest with Ops for claiming that replaced product even is not up to the mark, but the engineer visited the premises of complainant after one month of lodging of complaints and that fact is established by print out of SMS messages as discussed above. Though, in Ex.C5, it is mentioned that Prabjeet Singh after enquiry found the problem to be not yet resolved, but affidavit of that Prabjeet Singh not produced or tendered and as such, virtually no evidence produced by the complainant to establish that product in question is un-repairable. Ex.C6 is the email correspondence dated 25.5.2016 sent by the complainant to Ops, through which, information sought as to who will be responsible for solving the problem in the product because warranty is going to expire after 4-5 days. That responsibility of solving the problem for making the refrigerator due functional is certainly of OP1, the manufacturer because on the retail invoice/bill Ex.C4 itself, it is mentioned that the responsibility of seller i.e. OP2 ceases as and when goods removed from the godown/showroom of OP2. Besides, another endorsement on footnote of Ex.C4 is recorded to the effect that warranty to be provided by the concerned company only because counter from which the services provided to OP2 is only the sale counter. As warranty to be provided by the manufacturer and as such, it is for the OP1 to make the refrigerator in question due functional, free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed against OP1 only in terms that OP1 will repair the refrigerator in question for making the same due functional, free of costs, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 only. Payment of these costs be made by OP1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, complaint against OP2 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                   (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                             President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:11.05.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.