Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/119/2021

Mrs.Mary Theresa - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd,Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on : 17.09.2021

Date of Disposal                :  20.09.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHENNAI(NORTH)

2^nd  Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No. 119/2021

 

DATED THIS DAY TUESDAY THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

Mrs.Mary Therasa,

w/o. Inbaraja,

No-254/2,Chetpet Road,

Nesal Coot Road, Nesal,

Arani taluk,Thiruvannamalai District.                                       ….  Complainant

 

…Vs…

 

1)LG Electronics India Private Limited,.

Rep. by its Manager,

No. AA 11,Fathima towers,1st & 2nd floor,

2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,Chennai-600 040

(near nalli silk house)

 

2)VITAL Electronics

Authorized Service centre,(LG Electronics)

No.3, 2^nd cross street, Balaji Road,

Krishna Nagar, Vellore-532 001.                                    ….Opposite parties.       

                                     

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.V.T.Srinivasan and S.Victor Prasath

 

Counsel for  opposite parties               : Ex-parte

 

ORDER

TMT.KAVITHA KANNAN  M.E.: MEMBER-I

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against Opposite parties under section 35 of Consumer protection Act 2019 prays to direct the opposite parties to replace the fridge purchased for an amount of Rs. 23,688.44 and to pay a sum of Rs. 6,68,000/- as account to compensate for damages caused due to fire accident, a sum of 10,00,000 towards sufferings and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/ towards litigation cost.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF :

The complainant here in alleges that he purchased a LG fridge from Vasanth &Co, Arani Branch paying a cost of Rs.23688.44 vide Invoice No. 15091170012894 on 1/6/2020. On 27/7/2020 the fridge was not working properly and the same was informed to opposite party 1. The Opposite party 1 redirects the complainant to Opposite Party 2 as he is the authorized dealer for service of LG fridges. The complainant approached the opposite party 2 on 28/7/2020 and followed by which the opposite party 2 arrives at the complainant house and services the fridge and promised that there will not be any problem in future . The service personnel explained that the nature of the fault was due to electric supply problem inside the fridge and the same was rectified and the complainant had paid a service charge of Rs. 590/-. Two days only from the date of service on 30/7/2020 the problem reoccured and Opposite party 2 was called upon for service on 31/7/2020.The Opposite party 2 serviced the fault and the Opposite Party 2 raised a cash bill where the  complainant had to pay Rs. 2806/- towards the service. When the complainant questioned the fridge was in warranty period and the same was not considered by both the Opposite parties. On 2/12/2020 there was unexpected fire outbreak , the LG fridge bursted and created many electrical damages including an LED Tv, Shelf, furniture, fans, and electrical equipments tuned to an amount of   Rs. 6,68,000/.An The complainant had registered a police complaint on 4/12/2020 before Arani Police Station, Thiruvannamalai in FIR no. 3454/2020. He also obtains certificate from the Fire Department in O.MU.No.9824/A1/2020 dated 11/12/2/2020.The complainant had sustained heavy loss to a tune of         Rs.6,68,000/ and mental agony. The complainant states that the opposite party 1 being the incharge office of the manufacturer of the LG Fridge had manufactured a defective fridge and falsely advertised it as the best fridge in the world and the opposite party 2 being the authorized service centre had serviced the fridge on false promises that the fridge is perfect and there is no defect. The complainant herein the complaint prays this commission to direct the opposite parties to replace the fridge purchased for a cost of Rs. 23,688.44, to pay a sum of Rs. 6,68,000/- towards damage caused due to the fire accident, to pay a sum of Rs10,00,000/- as compensation towards sufferings and mental agony and Rs. 5000/ towards litigation cost. Hence the complaint.

2. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and  unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite parties ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.  If so, to what extent?

The Proof Affidavit was filed by the Complainant as his evidence and the documents were marked as Ex. A1 to A9 and Written argument also filed by Complainant. Opposite parties were set ex-parte.

3. POINT NO. 1

The Complainant purchased a brand new LG fridge paying a sum of Rs.29500/- from Vasasnth and Co.Arani vide Invoice No. 15091170012894 on 1/06/2020 marked as ExA1.After a month the fridge fails to work in order and so the complainant approaches the 1st opposite party for remedy. The 1st opposite party redirects the complainant towards 2nd opposite party stating that he was the Authorized service dealer for LG products. The complainant on the advice of Opposite party1 calls upon 2nd opposite party for service of the fridge.  Opposite party service personnel on arrival repairs by replacing some part in the fridge mentioned as S.V.C thereby raising a service bill for Rs.590/- paid by the complainant marked as Ex.A2. The 2nd opposite party arrives for the service on the very next day on 23/07/2020 and the service personnel carries on repair work guaranteeing about the efficiency of repair against repetition of malfunction of fridge. The date of first service as per Ex.A2 is 23.07.2020. A week after the first service there raises another dysfunction in the fridge on 31/7/2020, wherein the Opposite Party 2 is again called upon for service. The Opposite Party 2 replaces the PCB-Printed Circuit Board thereby raising a service charge of Rs.2806/- marked as Ex.A3.The complaints maintains the fact that the fridge was under warranty in all his averments but failed to file any documentary proof that the fridge is covered under the warranty period.  After 4 months of effective working of fridge unpredicted fire breaks in the complainant’s kitchen ravaging the fridge, many other household utensils and valuable documents as found in the Fire Department Certificate Ex.A3. An FIR registered on the very same day of accident marked as Ex A4.

    4. On perusal of the exhibits, the following are observed and clear that the fridge had worked without any complaint in the initial days of purchase, which proves that the fridge did not suffered from any manufacturing defect and there is no expert evidence to prove that the fridge had manufacturing defect and hence there is no unfair trade practice on the part of 1st opposite party. There is no evidence produced to prove that the fridge was under warranty. Hence no deficiency of service proved on part of opposite parties. In the absence of the investigation report filed by the police authorities based on the FIR filed we could not conclude the reason for fire outbreak is bursting of fridge. The complainant fails to submit the investigations report.  There is no proof to show that the fire out break in the complainant’s house is due to the bursting of the fridge even in Ex.A5 and A6 it is not stated that the fire broke out due to bursting of the fridge.  It is further found that the alleged damage to the various household items of the complainant is no way connected with the bursting of the fridge and there is absolutely no material to connect the damages sustained to the bursting of the fridge.  Further the complainant has not filed any photo graphs in respect of the alleged bursting of fridge and consequent damages to his household items.   Hence it is found that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. Point no.1 answered accordingly.

5. POINT NO.2

Based on facts and figures furnished in Point no.1 there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and no unfair trade practice carried out by the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to seek any refund or remedy as against the opposite parties and hence the complaint is dismissed. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

                             In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated by the Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20^th  day of September 2022.

 

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

Ex. A1	01.06.2020	Copy of invoice. No.15091170012894
Ex. A2	23.07.2020	Tax invoiceNo.00438 (Service charge)
Ex. A3	31.07.2020	Tax invoiceNo.00727 (Service charge)
Ex. A4	04.12.2020	Copy of FIR. No.3454/2020
Ex. A5	11.12.2020	Fire Department Certificate.
Ex. A6	14.12.2020	Certificate issued by VAO
Ex.A7		Estimate cost of damage.
Ex.A8	09.02.2021	Legal Notice.
Ex.A9		Acknowledgement card of 2nd opposite party and returned cover of 1st opposite party.

 

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT