Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/19/291

Biju Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

      SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN              : PRESIDENT

  SMT.PREETHA G NAIR         : MEMBER

                                                                           SRI.VIJU.V.R                         : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.291/2019 (Filed on : 05/05/2019)

ORDER DATED : 25/05/2022

COMPLAINANT

Biju Thomas,

Manager, Marunadan Malayali,

TC 17/3164 (11)

Pattom Palace.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram- 4

 

(Party in person)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. The Managing Director,

LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd,

A Wing (3^rd Floor), D-3,

District Center Saket,

New Delhi – 110017

 

2. Dependo Industries,

Smt.Rani, Kazhakkoottam,

•  

 

3. The Manager,

Dhakshnia Electronics,

Bhagawathi Nagar Road,

Krishnagiri, Samithy Nagar
Ambalamukku, Trivandrum -5,

(OP1 by Adv.R.Padmaraj)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

1.       This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.       This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.       The case of the complainant in short is that on 25/07/2017 the complainant purchased two LG 2 ton 3 Star Invertor 24 Auxa Model air conditioner from the second opposite party by paying Rs.1,08,760/- . On 24/04/2018 the complainant noticed water leakage from the front side of one of the air conditioner, a complaint was registered through LG complaint Toll Free number. After two days, the technicians from the third opposite party service centre done service to the air conditioner. But after  few days, the same defect found and the water from the air conditioner fell on the nearby computer of the complainant, as a result of which the computer also damaged. This was also informed to the opposite parties by registering a complaint. Though on different occasions different technicians attended the service of the air conditioner, there was no progress in the functioning of the air conditioner and the defect of the air conditioner still persisted and hence the complainant demanded replacement of the air conditioner purchased by the complainant from the second opposite party for which the opposite parties were not agreed and hence the complainant approached this commission for redressing his grievances.

4.       After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. The opposite parties 2 & 3 after accepting the notice not appeared before this commission and hence they were declared exparte.

5.       The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 from the side of the complainant. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed written version, but failed to file affidavit and mark the document on behalf of first opposite party. The opposite parties 2 & 3 being declared exparte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of opposite parties 2 & 3.

6.       Points to be considered

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief claimed in the complaint?
3. Order as to cost?

7.       Heard. Perused records and affidavit. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ex.P1 invoice was produced and marked. Ext.P1 invoice reveals that the complainant has purchased air conditioners from the second opposite party by paying Rs.1,08,760/-. The first opposite party admitted that the complainant has purchased two air conditioners on 25/07/2017. It is also admitted that the periodical services were done to the air conditioners from the third opposite party authorized service centre. The first opposite party also admitted that on 24/04/2018 the complainant registered a complaint in respect of dripping of water from the air conditioner. According to the first opposite party even after service, dripping of water is noticed and therefore the senior technician from the first opposite party verified the product and suggested change and position of the air conditioners and the complainant was not prepared for the same and insisted for replacement of the air conditioner. The first opposite party further contended that since the air conditioner has got no manufacturing defect, the opposite parties could not accept the demand for replacement of the air conditioner. The first opposite party denied the allegation in the complaint to the effect that dripping of water from air conditioner has damaged the computer of the complainant. As such allegation was not made till filing of this complaint. According to the opposite party since the present position of the air conditioner is the cause of water dripping, the opposite party is prepared to reinstall the air conditioner free of cost to a different position so as to avoid dripping of water and prepared to do all services required for curing the present problem. The first opposite party further submits that this complaint is a frivolous one and the same is to be dismissed.

8.       Admittedly one of the air conditioner purchased by the complainant from the second opposite party has got a problem of dripping of water. It is also admitted that service was done by the opposite parties. In written version, the first opposite party categorically admitted the dripping of water from the internal unit of one of the air conditioner purchased by the complainant. In view of the admission in the written version filed by the first opposite party and the affidavit filed by the complainant coupled with Ext.P1 document, it is proved that the air conditioner purchased by the complainant has got a defect of dripping of water from the internal unit of the air conditioner. Now the question to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to replacement of their air conditioner or not. The allegation of the complainant with regard to the damages caused to the computer of the complainant due to the dripping of water from the air conditioner is not established by the complainant and hence we are unable to accept the prayer of the complainant to the effect that the opposite party is to be directed to pay Rs.60, 000/- towards the cost of the computer. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party after filing written version not filed any affidavit or documents to substantiate their contentions and to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. As the first opposite party has agreed with regard to the dripping of water and expressed their inability to cure the defect, we find that the suggestion of the first opposite party to change the position of the air conditioner from the existing place is not acceptable. In the absence of any evidence from the side of opposite parties and the admission in the written version with regard to the failure on the part of the opposite parties to rectify the defect, we find that there is much force in the allegations raised by the complainant. Admittedly, the purchase of the air conditioner was on 25/07/2017 and the first complaint was registered with the opposite parties on 24/04/2018 will go to show that the defect was occurred to a new brand air conditioner within a period of nine months. Hence we find that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss after purchase of the air conditioner from the opposite party. When the opposite party admits the complaint with regard to dripping of water from the internal unit of one of the air conditioner and the admission that only option to get rid of the defect is to change the position of the air conditioner is in a way express their inability to cure the defects of the air conditioner. From the above discussions, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which resulted in financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. As the financial loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant was due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the sufferings faced by the complainant. Mere filing a written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant is not sufficient to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

                      In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace one air conditioner of the same standard to the complainant or refund of Rs.39,984.38/- with proportionate GST of one air conditioner to the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization or remittance.

     A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

         

    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 25^th day of May 2022.

 

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

APPENDIX

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Biju Thomas

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Copy of cash bill dated 25/07/2017

List of witness for the opposite parties – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties - NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

 

 

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    PRESIDENT