BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.239/15.
Date of instt.: 08.10.2015.
Date of Decision: 29.08.2016.
V.K.Kohli S/o Sh. Ram Rattan r/o House No.1236, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A-Wing (3rd Floor) D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
- L.G.Electronics Service Centre, M/s. Guru Kirpa Enterprises, 223A/12, Ashoka Colony, Karnal Road, Kaithal-136027.
- M/s. Jainsons, Bus Stand Road, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Complainant in person.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Sh. Aman Jain, Adv. for Op No.3.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one LG refrigerator double door, Model GR-M712TQ from Op No.3 vide bill No.503 dt. 16.04.2011 for the sum of Rs.32,000/-. It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said refrigerator was not working properly and due to which, there was no proper cooling. It is further alleged that within 8-10 months from its purchase, the said refrigerator was repaired by the mechanic of Ops two times but the fault could not be removed from the said refrigerator. It is further alleged that on 06.06.2015, the said refrigerator was completely stopped and the complainant made complaint at LG Consumer Services No.1800-180-9999 and the engineer of Ops visited the house of complainant on 08.06.2015 and told the complainant that the cost of Rs.2,000/- as repair charges will be paid by the complainant. It is further alleged that the said refrigerator was repaired and repairing charges of Rs.2,000/- was also paid by the complainant vide bill No.00232 dt. 08.06.2015 but even after the repair work, the said refrigerator was not working properly. It is further alleged that the complainant made many requests to the Ops for replacement of said refrigerator but the Ops did not remove the grievances of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Ops No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the said refrigerator was purchased by the complainant on 16.04.2011. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Further, the refrigerator of complainant has been checked and gas has been filled in the compressor of the same vide complaint No.RNA151020095961 dt. 20.10.2015 and the said refrigerator is in perfect working condition. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi and evasively denied all the facts mentioned in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CA to Ex.CE and closed evidence. On the other hand, the Ops No.1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence. Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW3/A and closed evidence.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased the LG refrigerator in question from the Op No.3 for the sum of Rs.32,000/- vide bill No.503 dt. 16.04.2011. The grievance of the complainant is that the said refrigerator was not working properly from the very beginning and despite repair of said refrigerator by the Ops several times, there was no proper cooling in the said refrigerator. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill, Ex.CA, copy of job-sheet dt. 22.02.2015, Ex.CB, copy of retail invoice dt. 08.06.2015, Ex.CC, copy of legal notice, Ex.CD and postal receipts, Ex.CE. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the refrigerator was purchased by the complainant on 16.04.2011. He further argued that the said refrigerator of complainant has been checked and gas has been filled in the compressor of the same vide complaint No.RNA151020095961 dt. 20.10.2015 and the said refrigerator is in perfect working condition. The Ops No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW3/A.
7. From the job-sheet dt. 22.02.2015, Ex.CB, it is clear that repair work was done by the mechanic of Ops. But the said refrigerator again became defective on 08.06.2015, as is clear from the copy of Vat/Retail Invoice, Ex.CC, vide which an amount of Rs.2000/- was also charged by the Ops from the complainant but even then, the refrigerator of complainant was not working properly. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that despite repair of the refrigerator in question many times by the Ops, the grievance of the complainant regarding the said refrigerator that the same was not working properly was not removed. We found no force in the contention of ld. Counsel for the Ops that the refrigerator was in perfect O.K. condition because the Ops have failed to place on file any certificate/affidavit of the expert mechanic, from which it could be proved that the said refrigerator was in perfect O.K. condition inspite of the fact that the Ops have admitted in their reply about the complaint dt. 20.10.2015 and job-sheet dt. 26.10.2015 which means that the refrigerator was not working properly. So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to repair the refrigerator and replace the defective parts with new one free of cost and further to pay Rs.1100/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.29.08.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
