Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/485

Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 485 of 11.07.2014

   Date of Decision            :  26.10.2017

 

Gurcharan Singh son of S.Dharam Singh, resident of I-125, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                            Versus       

 

1.L G Electronics Private Limited, A-27, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi and also at Gill Road, Ludhiana.

2.H R A Sales Corporatio B-34/3646, Jassian Road, New Tagore Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

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

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant               :         Sh.I.S.Luthra, Advocate

For Ops                           :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Complainant purchased a refrigerator of LG brand bearing model No.GL-285 BEG5 FWBZEBH through invoice dated 14.7.2013 from OP2 by paying price of Rs.19,136/- in cash. OP2 is the authorized distributor of OP1. Said refrigerator was having guarantee of one year, but the guarantee on compressor was for 10 years from the date of purchase. On 15.7.2013, the official of OP1 visited the house of complainant and installed the refrigerator. After month of this installation, refrigerator started giving problem, due to which, complaint was lodged with OP1 at their helpline. Again after few days, water started accumulating inside from the door of the freezer unit and tank situate above the compressor unit. Thereafter, another complaint was lodged with OP1, which was attended by the official/technician of OP1, who disclosed that problem was due to faulty design of the door and frame unit of freezer. They further disclosed that same can be replaced, when a new door is received from Op1. Some time was sought for rectifying the fault. After some days, the door of the refrigerator itself developed cracks, due to which water started overflowing from the tank installed over the compressor unit. Complainant received electric shock from the overflowing water. It was claimed by the distributor/dealer at the time of sale that there is special technology installed in the refrigerator, due to which, water will not accumulate because the same will evaporate itself. Numerous complaints were lodged regarding the fault and with passage of months, technicians of company replaced the door as well as frame of the freezer unit. However, some more time was sought for rectifying the fault of the tank above compressor. Main door of the refrigerator bend downwards and it became very difficult to open the door. On another complaint made with OP2, fault was kept pending for want of door and its part. Even the earlier parts were not rectified by OP1 as promised at the time of sale of refrigerator in the form of warranty/guaranty. It is claimed that since the date of purchase, door of the refrigerator, door of the freezer unit has been changed for six times, but despite that problem is persisting because water overflows despite defrost of the refrigerator by every two days. That overflowing of water is dangerous because of strong chance of receiving an electric shock. It is claimed that there are manufacturing defects in the refrigerator. Complainant requested for replacement of the refrigerator or return of the price, but to no effect. Even legal notice through counsel was sent on 4.6.2014, but to no effect. By pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment. Refund of price amount of Rs.19,136/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase even claimed. Litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- more claimed.

2.                 In written reply submitted by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is bad in view of section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’); there is concealment of material facts; complaint is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations; no legitimate ground set out  for replacement or refund of the price of the refrigerator; complainant has no cause of action for filing the complaint because there is no deficiency in service or breach of the contract on the part of Ops. It is claimed that complaint has been filed with malafide intention. It is claimed that refrigerator was working perfectly because the cooling and ice formation was normal and even the other parameters were normal, when the service engineer last visited the complainant for servicing the refrigerator. There was no problem in the refrigerator, when the same was installed in the house of the complainant and even the complainant was fully satisfied at that time. It is admitted that complaint was lodged regarding overflow of water from the tray affixed above the compressor. Service engineer duly explained complainant about working of the refrigerator. It is claimed that refrigerator in question is not frost free model, but has to be defrosted after regular interval depending upon the accumulation of  ice in the freezer and water formed from the melting of ice due to defrost process. On defrost, the water collects in the tray, situate above compressor and the same         has to be physically drained out by pulling out the tray up to its capacity. This procedure was duly explained to the complainant and his family members. The door of the freezer is alleged to be normal. It is claimed that in case, complainant do not agree with the above mentioned procedure, then complainant may be directed to submit the refrigerator with the authorized service centre for inspection and expert opinion. In the alternative, prayer made for permitting the service engineer of Ops to inspect the refrigerator and submit his report. Complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and nor he complained about the inferior quality of specific part of the product. In absence of any expert evidence, the claim cannot be allowed. Burden of proving the manufacturing defect is on the complainant by producing the technical expert report. Refund of price or replacement of refrigerator with new one is permissible only, where defect develops during the period of warranty of such a nature, which cannot be cured or repaired. In the event of any defect being developed after lapse of warranty period, answering Ops are not responsible for the same. The complaint lodged by the complainant with customer care centre has been duly redressed. It is not denied that the complainant purchased the refrigerator on 14.7.2013 for Rs.19,136/- vide an invoice. However, it is denied that compressor carries warranty for 10 years from the date of purchase. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied, by praying for dismissal of complaint. It is claimed that there is no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. Service of legal notice denied for want of knowledge.

3.                 Complainant along with counsel tendered in evidence   affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and then they closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RA and Ex.RB of Sh.Sucha Singh, Senior Manager of LG Electronics Pvt.Ltd, of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Service Manager of OPs along with document Ex.R1 and then closed the evidence.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Purchase of refrigerator in question by the complainant from Op2 established by invoice Ex.C1 dated 14.7.2013 for consideration of Rs.19.136/-. On Ex.C1 itself, it is mentioned that goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged and as such, it is obvious that virtually the warranty to be provided by the manufacturer and not by the seller. Even the terms and conditions of warranty Ex.C2 are produced on record to establish that LG refrigerator has one year warranty from the date of purchase on all parts except consumable, loose plastic parts and glass. Warranty on compressor is also provided through Ex.C2. Defect in the freezer door surfaced and that is why, job sheet Ex.C4 dated 24.4.2014 was prepared. So, it is obvious that virtually defect in the door of the freezer surfaced within one year of purchase and that is why job sheet Ex.C4 was prepared.

7.                 Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 are the photographs of the compressor and tray affixed above that and contentious issue is as to whether manufacturing defect is there in the compressor and tray part or not.

8.                 After going through important safety information provided through Ex.C3, it is made out that water must not be splashed on the refrigerator otherwise, it may cause short circuit. So, certainly submission advanced by counsel for complainant has force that in case water splashes on the refrigerator, then it will cause short circuit and even shock may be received by the person touching the refrigerator.  On manual defrosting or due to defrosting on account of power failure, the water directly accumulates in the chiller tray and same to be disposed directly from the chiller tray by taking it out is specifically mentioned under head ‘defrosting’ at page no.4 of Ex.C3. So, it is obvious that as per instructions contained in the owner’s manual Ex.C3, the tray has to be pulled out or taken out for removal of water accumulated in the chiller tray put above the compressor. However, it is further laid down in para no.2 under head ‘defrosting’at page no.4 of Ex.C3 itself that the water in the drain tray evaporates by natural evaporation, if defrosting is done once in two days. However, due to varied conditions of usage, it is desirable to check the drain tray occasionally and dispose of the water, if any. The user is required to ensure that chiller tray is in the correct position. That should be ensured by pushing the chiller tray to its correct position, otherwise the  defrosted water may fall over the contents of the refrigerator. So, from all this, it is made out that as per owner’s manual instructions contained in Ex.C3, defrosting of the water is required to be done in once or two days, but in case, water accumulats in the chiller tray, then the same has to be removed by the user by taking the tray out and then setting the same at proper position. Provision for evaporation of water accumulated in the chiller tray through natural evaporation process is also specified in Ex.C3. It is contended by counsel for complainant that in fact, the chiller tray could not be taken out easily by the user at all, but the same can be removed with the help of an expert only and that is a manufacturing defect. That submission of counsel for complainant albeit controverted by Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate vehemently, but in fact the same has force, when looked into the light of report Ex.C9 of Sh.Satyam Singh appointed expert by this Forum.

9.                 After going through report Ex.C9 of Sh.Satyam Singh, the appointed expert by this Forum, it is made out that water tray is installed over the compressor of refrigerator in question in such a way that accumulated water overflows causing resultant water entry in the electric parts. This part of report Ex.C9 of the expert certainly proves the submission of counsel for complainant that in fact, the accumulated water in chiller tray overflows resulting in its entry in the electric parts due to which, the electric shock may be felt by the user. As the owner’s manual Ex.C3 provides that water must not splash on the refrigerator, otherwise the shock may be felt by the user, but report Ex.C9 provides that overflowing of water in the chiller tray has effect on electric parts of refrigerator and as such, certainly   overflowed water in chiller tray after entering in the electric parts of refrigerator bound   to cause electric shock and even damage to the electric parts, from where overflowed water   will gush in.

10.               Further report Ex.C9 of the expert establishes that water tray is affixed in such a way that it cannot be removed by an ordinary person. Rather, in report Ex.C9, it is specifically mentioned that only an expert can remove  the water tray for taking out the water. So, this report Ex.C9 certainly establishes that chiller water tray affixed above the compressor is not easily removable by an ordinary user. Rather, the removal of this tray can be with the assistance of an expert only. If the removal of chiller tray not possible by an ordinary person, then this means that for preventing overflow of water from the chiller tray, help of expert will be needed every time, the chiller tray is to be made empty. In view of this, certainly complainant facing utmost difficulty in not removing the water from the chiller tray, so as to make it empty. That difficulty certainly is due to a manufacturing defect, which cannot be repaired by the technician and as such, complainant entitled for replacement of the refrigerator in question with new one of equal model, but of the same worth.

11.               Perusal of report Ex.C9 further establishes that there is requirement of repair of door, due to loose bush and internal door of the freezer unit even was found broken due to which, the same was requiring replacement. So, faults in the door even exist as per expert opinion produced on record by the complainant with the assistance of this Forum. Report Ex.C9 further provides that there is no technology or device installed in the refrigerator, as per which, the water evaporates automatically. So, mis-representation virtually is made in owner’s manual Ex.C3 in so far as it is mentioned there  that chiller tray installed in the refrigerator above compressor has technology of automatic evaporation of water. As such technology in fact is not existing in the refrigerator in question as per report Ex.C9 and as such, false assurance was given to the complainant at the time of sale of the refrigerator in question, as if water from the chiller tray, installed above the compressor, will automatically evaporate. Making of such false representation or assurance is an act of unfair trade practice and as such, complainant certainly entitled to replacement of the refrigerator with new one because the said defect pointed out through report Ex.C9 cannot be removed by carrying out repairs even. Sh.Satyam Singh, who submitted expert report Ex.C9 is diploma holder in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning is a fact borne from the contents of copy of Diploma Certificate produced by him as Ex.C10. So certainly report Ex.C9 is produced by the expert in the line.

12.               Affidavit Ex.RB of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, working as Service Engineer with OP1 is produced for establishing that there is water tray installed over compressor for collection of water, on melting of ice in the freezer. Contents of this affidavit Ex.RB further provides that in normal course of the working of refrigerator,   the water gets collected in the water tray existing above the condenser, due to which, evaporation on account of generated heat of running of compressor automatically takes place. Further, as per affidavit Ex.RB, in case the refrigerator is completely defrosted, then water has to be drained out from the tray manually because during defrosting the compressor is not working and water does not evaporates.  Mention of instructions contained in the operation manual Ex.C3 regarding process of defrosting required to be twice in a week, also made in this affidavit Ex.RB. In view of all this, it is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that water accumulated in the chiller tray has to be removed, as and when the defrosting done. However, removal of chiller tray by an ordinary person is not possible as per report Ex.C9 referred in detail above and as such, reliance on contents of this affidavit Ex.RB or case of OP1 cannot be placed for finding that complainant is at fault in not removing the water chiller tray for clearing the water there from after defrostation. As the removal       of tray by an ordinary person is not possible and as such, fault in complainant cannot be found on account of non removal of tray every time the defrostation is done. Rather, the manufacturer i.e. Op1 for getting rid of his responsibility of providing due technology as disclosed through contents of Ex.C3, wants to make the complainant a scape goat for getting rid of his responsibility. That is also an act of unfair trade practice and as such, certainly complainant due to sufferance entitled for compensation for mental harassment and agony and also to litigation expenses along with relief of replacement of refrigerator in question with new one of equal model and equal worth. In view of above pointed manufacturing defect, only OP1 liable to do the needful because he is the manufacturer.

13.               Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed against OP1 only in terms that it will replace the refrigerator in question with a new one of equal model of worth of Rs.19,136/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Complaint against OP2 however is dismissed. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 only.  Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

14.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.      

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                     (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                              President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:26.10.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.