Haryana

Kaithal

365/20

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ashutosh Sharma

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.365/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 23.10.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:01.09.2023.

Sunil Kumar S/o Satish Kumar, r/o Mata Gate, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. LG Electronics India through its Manager, 51 Udyog Vihr, Udyog Vihar Extension, Ecotech-1 Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201306.
2. Mahesh Communication, Shop No.4, State Bank Road, near Chotta Park, Kaithal-136027.
3. Modern Traders through its Proprietor/Partner, Park Road, Kaithal.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OPs.No.1 & 2.

                OP No.3 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Sunil Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased one Split Air Conditioner Model No.KSQ18YNZA of LG Company from the OP No.3 for the sum of Rs.44,000/- vide invoice No.3908 dt. 28.06.2019.  The case of complainant is that on 30.04.2020 some inherent and incurable defects were accrued in the said A.C. as cooling was not effective for which complainant made complaint to OP No.2 bearing complaint No.RNP200429072252 but the OPs No.2 & 3 did not pay any heed despite repeated complaints of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.          Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission, whereas OP No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 05.01.2021 passed by this Commission.   OPs No.1 & 2  contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the answering OP is a renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing electronic products for the past several years; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant lodged the complaint with the answering OP No.1 on 29.04.2020 but the same could not be resolved due to lock down imposed on account of spread of Pandemic Covid-19.  But when the work resumed, service engineer was sent to the premises of complainant.  The complainant told the service-engineer to reinstall the said AC to another place.  The Service Engineer told the complainant that it could be done on chargeable basis as per the company policy and gave him an estimate of Rs.1770/- for the same.  The complainant refused to pay the amount and has got his AC re-installed from some local mechanic other than the authorized service-centre of the answering OP No.1.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs No.1 & 2 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities including last opportunities, so, the evidence of OPs No.1 & 2 was closed vide court order dt. 04.08.2023. 

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased one Split Air Conditioner Model No.KSQ18YNZA of LG Company from the OP No.3 for the sum of Rs.44,000/- vide invoice No.3908 dt. 28.06.2019.  It is further argued that on 30.04.2020 some inherent and incurable defects were accrued in the said A.C. as cooling was not effective for which complainant made complaint to OP No.2 bearing complaint No.RNP200429072252 but the OPs No.2 & 3 did not pay any heed despite repeated complaints of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP No.1 on 29.04.2020 but the same could not be resolved due to lock down imposed on account of spread of Pandemic Covid-19.  But when the work resumed, service engineer was sent to the premises of complainant.  The complainant told the service-engineer to reinstall the said AC to another place.  The Service Engineer told the complainant that it could be done on chargeable basis as per the company policy and gave him an estimate of Rs.1770/- for the same.  It is further argued that the complainant refused to pay the amount and has got his AC re-installed from some local mechanic other than the authorized service-centre of the OP No.1.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. The main contention of complainant is that the said AC was having manufacturing defect but he has failed to produce on file any report of expert/engineer which could prove that the said AC was having any manufacturing defect.  Moreover, the complainant has also not moved any application under Section 38(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for taking expert opinion to see the defect in the aforesaid AC.  It is also clear from the pleadings of complaint that the AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 28.06.2019 and the same stopped work due to fault in the month of April, 2020 which means that the complainant has used the said AC for more than 10 months.

10.            Thus, in view of above discussion as-well-as in the interest of justice, we direct the Ops jointly and severally to repair the said A.C. and to replace the defective parts, if any, free of cost to the satisfaction of complainant within 30 days from today.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony as-well-as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted partly accordingly.  

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs-respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:01.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.