Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/288/2019

Amit Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Shoppee - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	288/2019
Date of Institution	:	06.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	08.11.2019

 

                                       

                                               

 

Amit Rana son of Sh.Ramesh Chand r/o H.No.300/63, Block A, Adarsh Nagar, Naya Gaon, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     LG Shopee, Circuit Mall, Juneja’s Circuit Mall Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.147-148, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Proprietor /Partner (Authorized Dealer of LG).

 

2.     L.G., Plot No.57, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh -160002  through its Proprietor(Service Center of LG).

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT. PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Complainant in person.

Sh.Arjun Grover, Adv. for the OPs.

OPs No.1 and 2 exparte.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased a LG fridge 292RPZL from OP No.1 vide Invoice dated 06.09.2015 for Rs.21,800/- having 10 years warranty of the compressor.  The refrigerator alleged to be suffering from lot of problems i.e. main power supply (PCB) from the beginning of its purchase.  On 15.04.2019, he approached OP No.2 and sent a copy of the bill through whatsapp to it which informed him that the PSB of the refrigerator was not available and the Company had stopped manufacturing the said parts and gave a offer to exchange the fridge of the LG from the shop of the LG-Company by availing rebate of Rs.6,000/- in lieu of old refrigerator.  The complainant requested OP No.1 either to replace the defective part of the refrigerator or to give a new refrigerator but they did not bother to do so which caused him physical harassment as well as mental agony. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         In their written statement, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that the refrigerator in question was having 10 years warranty (one Year comprehensive warranty and 9 years additional warranty on compressor).  It has further been pleaded that the complainant had used the refrigerator for three years and 7 months and approached the OP-Company regarding an issue in the product on 15.04.2019.   The complainant was informed by the Service Engineer that the PCB which needs replacement was not available as the model in question was no longer manufactured by it.  It has further been pleaded that  complainant initially sent the bill, however, later he insisted upon the replacement of the refrigerator with a new one free of cost on attaining the knowledge that the value of the product would bear 65% depreciation as per the company policy.  According to the OPs, they are still ready to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with a new one as per the depreciation policy. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made by the OPs.
3.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the documents on record.
4.          The stand of the complainant is that the OPs are bound to provide the spare parts of the refrigerator in question and due to non-availability of the same, the refrigerator in question became useless and as such they are liable to refund its price alongwith compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses. 
5.         Per contra, the stand of the OPs is that since the PCB (printed circuit board) of the refrigerator required to be changed was not available with the OPs and as such it rightly offered to pay 35% of the total invoice of the refrigerator in question after deducting 65% towards its depreciation which the complainant had refused to accept the same and as such the complaint is liable to be rejected. 
6.         It is the obligation of the manufacturing company to provide services relating to repairs which are deemed to include the supply of spare parts and consumable parts to render the product back into proper working condition. In this modern era, it has become a common practice for the manufacturing companies to lure the gullible consumers through advertisements to purchase their products and thereafter fleece them of their hard earned money by denying their liability to provide spare parts and consumable parts to its consumers essential for the working of the product during the average length of life.  This is a perfect case which affects the consumer community at large irrespective of the product used by them if the manufacturers of the products after sale deny their liability to provide the spare parts and consumable parts they force the consumers to abandon the products which are otherwise in proper working condition.  This amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturers to escalate their sales and profit figures by thrusting the consumers to abandon the product and purchase a new one in its place.
7.         In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the deduction of 65% on account of the depreciation of the refrigerator in question is on the higher side and unjustified because  due to failure on the part of the OPs to provide necessary spare part at cost to the complainant just after 3½ years of its purchase has compelled him to abandon the refrigerator in question which but for want of spare part is otherwise in proper working condition and thus has cut short the average length of life of the refrigerator.  We are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to apply the depreciation of 50% instead of 65%.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay 50% of Rs.21,800/- i.e. the invoice value of the refrigerator in question with a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amounts shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides litigation expenses. The complainant shall return the refrigerator in question alongwith its accessories to the OPs on receipt of the awarded amount.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08.11.2019                                                            sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER