Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/109/2019

Manpreet kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.109 of 2019

Date of Instt.:25.03.2019

Date of Decision:11.02.2021

 

Manpreet Kaur wife of Sh.Sukhwinder Singh resident of Ganesh Colony, Ladwa Road, Pipli tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      …….Complainant.                                               Versus

 

1.LG India Office D-59,  Industrial Area, Kasna Road,  Surajpur, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201306.

2.Haryana Sales, Opp.Sector 17, Arya Samaj Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its owner.

                   .…Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                     

                   

Present:      Complainant in person.

                   Sh.Shekhar Kapoor  Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

                  

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Manpreet Kaur against  L.G.India etc.- the opposite parties.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant  purchased one window  AC of LG  one ton from OP No.1 vide bill No.5153 dated 28.03.2018, through OP No.2.  OPs had given guarantee of the said AC for a period of five years.  It is averred that the said AC was manufactured by OP No.2 and since beginning the said AC is not functioning properly and the complainant gave its information to OP No.1 through OP No.2. The representatives of Customer Care told the complainant that voltage of the electricity is less whereas at the house of the complainant it was not so. The complainant had also installed big voltage at her house.  It is averred that excuse of low voltage taken by the Customer Care is not correct and the Customer Care is not working properly and  such act on the part of Customer Care has caused financial loss to the complainant.   Due to wrong excuse taken by the Customer Care, the complainant had visit the shop time again,  changed stabilizer for two years and spent Rs.10,000/- which is deficiency on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and has sought the refund of Rs.25,000/- i.e. cost of the AC alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.                Upon notice OPs appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the AC on 28.03.2018.  It is submitted that the Air conditioner so purchased by the complainant was a brand new defect free air conditioner and the same is being used by the complainant as per her requirement. The AC in question is working perfectly and there is no defect or problem in the working of the AC. The complainant has put forwarded a concocted story just to get his AC replaced with a new one and to grab money illegally from the OPs.  It is submitted that the complainant has not suffered any  monetary loss. In fact, the complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass  the answering OPs and to grab money illegally from the OPs. Thus, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.                The complainant in support of her case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered document Ex.C-1 and closed her  evidence.

 

5.                On the other hand, OPs  in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed their evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the material available on the case file.

 

7.                The complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant  purchased one window  AC of LG  one ton from OP No.1 vide bill No.5153 dated 28.03.2018, through OP No.2.  OPs had given guarantee of the said AC for a period of five years.  It is argued that the said AC was manufactured by OP No.2 and since beginning the said AC is not functioning properly and the complainant gave its information to OP No.1 through OP No.2. The representatives of Customer Care told the complainant that voltage of the electricity is less whereas at the house of the complainant it was not so. The complainant had also installed big voltage at her house.  It is further argued  that excuse of low voltage taken by the Customer Care is not correct and the Customer Care is not working properly and  such act on the part of Customer Care has caused financial loss to the complainant.

 

8.                On the other hand, Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the submissions made in the written statement and argued that  the Air conditioner so purchased by the complainant was a brand new defect free air conditioner and the same is being used by the complainant as per her requirement. The AC in question is working perfectly and there is no defect or problem in the working of the AC. The complainant has put forwarded a concocted story just to get his AC replaced with a new one and to grab money illegally from the OPs.

 

9.                After hearing the  complainant and the learned  counsel for the OPs,  we are of the view that there is no merit in the present complaint.  The complainant has alleged that since the date of its purchase, the AC is defective and not working properly. He has stated that he approached to the customer care centre of the OPs who refused to repair the AC on the pretext of low voltage. The complainant has failed to place on record any job sheet on the file to show that she ever approached the Customer Care Centre of the OPs for repair of the AC in question. The complainant has also alleged that he  got replaced the stabilizer twice but he has not placed on the file any document to corroborate her argument in this regard. So much so, the complainant has also failed to place any document on the file that he ever got checked the AC from some other mechanic. Thus, the  contention of the complainant is not corroborated with some document and cogent evidence and as such there is no merit in the present complaint and same merits dismissal.

 

10.              In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.        

 

Announced in open Commission.

Dt.: 11.02.2021

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                             President.

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal)  (Neelam)  

                        Member               Member