Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak
Complaint No. : 381
Instituted on : 15.09.2020.
Decided on : 15.11.2021. .
Tarif Singh s/o Sh. Ved Pal R/o H.No.869/10, Gali No.14, Ramgopal colony, Rohtak(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- LG Shoppe, Electronics Point-10 Palika Bazar, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- LG Service Center in Rohtak Toll Free no.1800-315-9999/1800-180-9999.
- LG Electronics SCO-9, First Floor, Sahari Sampati, Sector-14, Karnal(Haryana).
- LG Electronics Surajpur, Kasna Road, Plot No.51, (Udyog Vihar) Greater Noida(U.P.).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that on 01.11.2019, he had purchased one LED LGUHD 43UM7300 for Rs.38160/- but he did not use the same for 8 months. When he used the LED, it did not work and he made complaint on customer care. After that the employee of company visited the house of complainant, checked the LED and told that the same was completely damaged. Complainant made a call in the company office and he was told that the alleged LED will be replaced on payment of Rs.19000/-. The complainant had purchased three products i.e. Washing machine, LED total amounting to Rs.91600/- and there is manufacturing defect in the alleged LED. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of Rs.38160/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that upon the receipt of the complaint from the complainant, a service engineer was sent to the premises of the complainant, who upon checking found that the Panel of LED in question was broken and the complainant had been given an estimate of Rs.17000/- for replacement of the Panel. But the complainant refused to pay the said amount and demanded for the replacement of the LED and also to pay compensation to him. The service engineer explained to the complainant that replacement cannot be given in such cases as the said Panel has been broken due to mishandling on the hands of the complainant or his family members. There is no manufacturing defect in the LED in question. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on record any expert report to prove that the LED in question is bearing any manufacturing defect. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of this case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and document Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.07.2021. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read in evidence and closed his evidence on 02.11.2021.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, he had purchased the LED in question on 01.11.2019 and kept it packed for 8 months and when the LED was opened for installation, it was found that the panel of the LED was broken and LED was not in working condition. In fact as per company policy, when any new LED is installed, it has to be installed free of cost by the service engineer of the company. The opposite party has not placed on record any document to prove that after purchase of the same, it was installed by them in the premises of the complainant or the LED in question was reopened. Meaning thereby, LED in question was given by the opposite parties in packed condition to the complainant and it was not installed by the engineers of the company upto 8 months of purchase and when the same was opened for installation, it was found that panel of LED was broken. Hence it is proved that the LED in question was delivered to the complainant in broken condition. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party no. 3 & 4 being the manufacturer are liable to refund the price of LED in question to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 & 4 to refund the price of LED in question i.e. Rs.38160/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand one hundred and sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.09.2020 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the LED in question to the opposite party No.3 & 4 at the time of making payment by opposite party No.3 & 4.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.11.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
