BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 178/2016 Filed on 08.04.2016

ORDER DATED: 17.08.2016

Complainant:

Rajesh Panicker, Proprietor, M/s Techno World, the IT Store, T.C 26/416, Opp: Hotel Hilton Inn, Punnan Road, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

                                       (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Authorized Signatory/Manager, M/s LG Shopee, United Electronics, T.C 2/3306(3) and (5), ‘Padmam’, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

2. Authorized Signatory/Manager, M/s L.G. India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, A wing (3^rd floor), D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017.

This C.C having been heard on 08.07.2016, the Forum on 17.08.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that, he purchased an A/C set from 2^nd opposite party on 24.03.2016 for Rs. 33,500/-.  The product is indoor split air conditioner model LSA 5AU3A Sl. No. 511NAFY003715.  But in the invoice the serial number of the set was not mentioned anywhere.  The product was delivered at Kowdiar residence of the complainant in packed condition.  The mechanic came to install the set on 26.03.2016 and on opening it was seen that the set was used for some months already.  It was completely coated with black dust, ink etc.  Stockers and tapes were loosened.  Immediately complainant informed Sri. Jayakumar, shop manager of LG Pattom, but not responded.  According to the mechanic for the time being the set will be installed and the company will replace the set after Easter holidays.  On 28.03.2016 the shop manager refused to accept that the set is used one and asked the complainant to complain directly to LG Head Quarters.  As a dealer he did not come to check and see himself.  An engineer from LG visited on 31.03.2016 and told the complainant that the set is used product.  The complainant made complaint to LG Toll free and they gave him the complaint I.D No. but no action was taken from their side.  As per the advice of the LG he contacted the Kerala Area Manager, he told the complainant that he will try to arrange replacement of the front plastic panel alone.  But the complainant demanded for a replacement.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and hence the complainant approached this Forum for replacement of        A/C or refund of Rs. 33,500/- with 12% interest along with compensation and costs. 

Notice was ordered to opposite parties and after accepting notice opposite parties failed to appear and set exparte. 

The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 and P2.

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on opposite party’s side?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he purchased one A/C manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for Rs. 33,500/- on 24.03.2016 as per Ext. P1.  But when the packet was opened it was seen that the set was one used for some months.  As the mechanic said that for the time being set will be installed and the company will replace the set and asked him to contact the office after Easter.  When the complainant contacted the shop manager on 28.03.2016, he advised him to contact the 2^nd opposite party toll free number as the set was already used by the complainant.  On repeated enquiry with the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party advised him to contact the Kerala Area Manager and he informed the complainant that the front plastic panel can be replaced, but did not accept the complainant’s demand for replacement.  Here the opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum for contesting the case.  Even though the opposite parties failed to appear we perused the documents produced by the complainant and there is no document to show that A/C was installed in the complainant’s house.  From the facts stated by the complainant it is seen that he installed the A/C and he did not produce any document to show that the A/C was used one.  The complainant has also no case that the A/C was a defective one.  Thus from the facts and evidence produced by the complainant we cannot find any unfair trade practice on opposite party’s side.  The complainant failed to produce any evidence to establish his case.  Hence complaint is only to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. 

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 Forum, this the 17^th day of August 2016.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

jb

C.C. No. 178/2016

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Retail invoice dated 24.03.2016

P2     - Copy of document showing details of A/C

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb