Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/34

Jagmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Barjit Kaur Adv.

27 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 34 of 11.01.2019

Date of Decision            :   27.08.2021

 

Jagmeet Singh S/o. Sh. Davinder Singh, R/o. H.No.281, Bhal Patti, Samaon, Mansa, Punjab-151504.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (Head office), Plot No.51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Near Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida-201310
2. LG Fridge Service Centre, B-21-2633, Janta Nagar, Gill Road, Near ATI/JP Cycle, Ludhiana-141003.
3. M/s. Benson Electronics, Opp. Indian Overseas Bank, New Bus Stand, Pull Sudhar Bazar, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties

 

 

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

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant            :         Ms. Barjit Kaur, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP2 and OP3          :         Exparte.

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one LG fridge from OP3 vide invoice No.836 dated 26.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.22,000/-. OP3 gave five years guarantee of the fridge and ten years guarantee of the compressor. The complainant was further assured that if any defect or problem occurred within guarantee period, the company would replace the fridge with a new one. It is further alleged that the fridge started giving trouble as it had manufacturing defects. There were several problems in the fridge due to which the complainant suffered a lot of tension and inconvenience. The complainant contacted OP3 in the month of July 2017, who assured the complainant that the defect would be removed by their team within short time. However, OP3 failed to get the fridge repaired. The complainant visited OP3 on 07.10.2017 and at that time, OP3 assured that the fridge would be replaced by OP2. Complaint No.RP171017080234 was lodged on 07.10.2017 itself. Thereafter, the engineer of the company came and tried to remove the defect in the fridge, but the fridge again started giving water leakage problem. The complainant lodged complaints with OP2 on 02.11.2017, 06.11.2017, 01.12.2017, 14.04.2018 and 16.08.2017. Every time the engineer of OP2 came and tried to remove the defect, but the problem recurred within no time. At the time of last visit, the engineer told the complainant that the problem could not be sorted and the complainant should lodge a complaint with the company for exchange of the fridge with a new one. Thereafter, the complainant lodged another complaint on 19.04.2017, but the OPs failed to replace the defective fridge with new one. In fact, OP3 flatly refused to replace the fridge. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the payment of Rs.22,000/- along with interest @18% per annum and be further made to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- Lac and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP2 and OP3 did not appear despite service and they were proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has, however, been resisted by OP1. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1, it has been pleaded that the refrigerator is in a perfect working condition, as per the report of the visiting engineer and there is no defect in the refrigerator, as alleged by the complainant. According to OP1, this complaint has been filed with sole purpose of harassing and pressurizing the OPs to succumb to unreasonable demands of the complainant. It has further been stated that the complainant first lodged a complaint on 17.10.2017 regarding water leakage. The service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked the refrigerator, but no repair or rectification was required to be done as only the defrosting procedure was required to be explained to avoid the overflow of water. Otherwise there was no defect in the refrigerator. Even when the complainant lodged complaints on 02.11.2017, 06.11.2017, 01.12.2017 and 20.12.2017, the visiting engineer found no defect as the refrigerator was giving proper cooling. As regards the complaints lodged on 17.04.2018 and 16.08.2018, it has been stated that in response to the complaints when the service engineer went to the premises of the complainant, he was not allowed to inspect or check the refrigerator. This shows that false complaints have been lodged and the product was in perfect working order. There has been no deficiency of service as is evident from the job sheet Ex. R1 to Ex. R7. The complainant has concealed the material facts and necessary information. The so called water leakage is not the defect in the refrigerator, but the same due to inappropriate usage by the complainant. Moreover the complainant has not pointed out any specific irreparable manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. Though the complainant has sought the replacement of the refrigerator, but the same is not permissible has under the terms of the warrantee the replacement or refund can be given only if the defect develops during the guarantee period and the same is of such a nature that it cannot be cured or repaired. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, counsel for the complainant submitted affidavit Ex.CA along with copy of invoice Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP1 submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Harish Chopra, branch Service Manager, LG Electronics India Private Limited, Ludhiana along with job sheets Ex. R1 to Ex. R7 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have carefully gone through the record and have heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has contended that from the very beginning, the refrigerator has been giving acute problem to the complainant as there has been a manufacturing defect and the problem of leakage of water could not be resolved by the service engineer of the OPs despite many visits. Counsel for the counsel has further contended that since there is some recurring manufacturing defect in the refrigerator which could not be sorted out and rectified by the service engineer of the OPs despite several visits, the OPs are duty bound to replace the refrigerator with a new one.  The counsel for the complainant has further contended that there was a warranty of one year on the refrigerator while the period of warranty in respect of the compressor was of five years. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that in these circumstances, the OPs be made to replace the refrigerator and be also directed to pay compensation, as prayed for in the complaint.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP1 has argued that the refrigerator purchased by the complainant is not a frost-free refrigerator and in such refrigerators, which do not have facility of automatic defrost, when some ice gets accumulated in the freezer, it has to be manually defrosted. In case it is not done, then the water starts leaking. According to counsel for the OPs, the problem of water leaking as alleged by the complainant, is not due to any manufacturing defect in the product, but the complainant has not been handling the same properly as the defrosting has to be done manually. Therefore, since there is no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator, the question of its replacement does not arise. Counsel for OP1 has further contended that the complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds and the same deserves to be dismissed.

9.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

10.              The minute perusal of the complaint reveals that in the complaint, the complainant has not pointed out any manufacturing defect in the product. In para no.2 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that the refrigerator starts giving trouble right from the time it was purchased and there were several problems in the fridge. In para No.3 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the service engineer of the OPs tried to repair the refrigerator, but it started giving water leakage problem, which could not be later on sorted out despite the complaints filed on 02.11.2017, 06.11.2017, 20.12.2017, 14.04.2018 and 16.08.2017. Thus, in the entire complaint, the only problem pointed out in the refrigerator is that there was a water leakage problem in the fridge. In addition to this, the complainant has also not examined any expert such as mechanic or refrigerator engineer, who might have examined the fridge to identify as to what problem was there in the product. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant for not examining an expert witness to prove the defect in the refrigerator.

11.              Here it would be relevant to refer to the job sheets prepared by the service engineer of the OP1 at the time of visits in response to the complaints filed by the complainant. In the job sheet Ex. R1, it has been mentioned that “Freezer box and ref balance explain only ok” which appears to mean that there was no defect and the procedure of defrosting was explained to the complainant. In the column of repair also, it has been mentioned that the procedure has been explained. In the second job sheet Ex. R2 dated 02.11.2017, the defect reported was “Drain duct clean ok” and in the repair column, it is mentioned that the clean set internally. In the job sheet Ex. R3 dated 06.11.2017, it is again mentioned in the column of defect reported by engineer “Freezer box adjustment and balance properly ok” and in the column of repair, it is mentioned internal adjustment. In the job sheet Ex. R4 dated 01.12.2017, it is mentioned in the column of defect reported by engineer “Set working already ok, but customer not satisfied”. In the repair column, it is mentioned that set found ok. In the job sheet Ex. R5 dated 20.12.2017 in the column defect reported by engineer it is mentioned “Water leakage issue, chill try block explain only ok” and in the column repair, it is mentioned “Explanation done”. In the job sheet Ex. R6 dated 16.08.2018, it is mentioned in the column defect reported by engineer “Set already ok so kindly cancel below call”. Similarly, in the job sheet Ex. R78 dated 16.08.2018 is it mentioned in defect reported by engineer that Customer says that my complaint going on in warranty time, he would not pay services charges. From the perusal of all the job sheets, it is evident that there was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and the recurring problem reported by the complainant regarding leakage of water which was happening as manual procedure for melting ice in the freezer was not followed as there was no facility of automatic defrosting and the service engineer kept explaining the mode of usage to the complainant. It is a matter of common knowledge that the refrigerators having automatic defrosting facility are slightly costlier. The complainant having bought a product without facility of automatic defrosting had to do manually defrosting. Apart from this, the complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that there has been a manufacturing defect in the product which might have necessitated the replacement of the product nor there is any evidence on record which may lead this Commission to a conclusion that the product is so defective that it needs replacement. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the complainant has failed to prove his case. Therefore, in the circumstances no case for replacement or refund of the value of the product is made out.

12.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

13.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

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

 

                     (Jyotsna Thatai)                                     (K.K. Kareer)

            Member                                                  President

 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:27.08.2021

Gobind Ram.