IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

ORDER

1. This complaint filed by Mr. A.P. Devaiah s/o. A.P. Poonacha, resident of Madikeri City against the dealer of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. –   OP 1 and Manufacturer of Refrigerator – OP2 with a prayer to replace the defective refrigerator with a new functioning refrigerator and award cost of this proceedings along with damages.

2. The complainant has purchased L.G refrigerator on 15/06/2017 from the opponent no.1 which was manufactured by the opponent no.2 and the same was installed by the opponent no.1 in the house of complainant.  After few months the refrigerator started mal functioning and the same was informed to the opponent no.1 then a technician was sent to repair the error.  The technician has replaced the circuit board even then the defect was not rectified.  Later on the technician informed the complainant that the compressor of the refrigerator is defective and the same has to be replaced but the opponents have not replaced the compressor inspite of the request made by the complainant lastly on 15/05/2018.  Hence, this complaint.

3. The opponent no.2 manufacturer of the refrigerator appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainant has purchased a refrigerator through its dealer opponent no.1 on 15/06/2017.  The opponent no.2 further admitted that when the refrigerator was mal -functioning and on notifying the defect the opponent no.1 has sent a technician to the house of the complainant and replaced the circuit board due to voltage fluctuation.  However the opponent no.2 denied that the circuit board was replaced at second time.  The opponent further denied that the technician has informed the complainant that the compressor of the refrigerator is defective and it has not been replaced so far.

4. It is the case of opponent No.2 that there is a problem with electrification in the house of the complainant and the refrigerator shall be the first electronic gadget to take hit by voltage fluctuation as it shall be in use 24 hours when compared to any other electronic gadget.  There is a problem in earthing point of the complainant’s house hence the compressor has failed.  As a matter of fact though defect arising out of voltage fluctuation and misuse are not covered under warranty.   However the opponent undertakes to replace the compressor if found failed.  The opponent denied the allegations made in the complaint that the refrigerator supplied by the opponent no.1 is a defective product and the opponents have failed to replace the defective refrigerator.  The opponent further submits that non workability of the refrigerator has not supported by any report from the qualified technician.  Therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of this opponent.  The complainant has approached this Forum under the garb of deficiency in service with intention to enrich him unlawfully.  There is no cause of action to file this complaint hence, on the above grounds the opponent prays to dismiss the complaint.

5. The opponent no.1 despite the personal service of notice was remained absent in this proceedings hence, he is set exparte.

6. The complainant inspite of sufficient opportunity did not care to file affidavit in lieu of evidence.  On the other hand, on behalf of opponent no.2 one Vishwanath Bhat, Area Service Manager, Mysore filed affidavit in lieu of evidence.

7. Perused the complaint, version and affidavit evidence of opponent no.2 and the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that the refrigerator supplied by opponent no.1 is defective?

2. What order?

8. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.2:- As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

9. In this case the opponent no.2 has admitted in the version and affidavit evidence that the complainant has purchased a refrigerator through the opponent no.1 on 15/06/2017 and same was installed by the opponent no.1.  The complainant along with the complaint produced tax invoice dated 15/06/2017 for purchase of LF refrigerator 282 SGSR for Rs.22,500/- plus Rs.1,000/-.  The complainant produced owner’s manual of the refrigerator which bears the seal of opponent no.1 with date and seal on 15/06/2017.  This manual contains warranty clause  on page no.19.  The opponent no.2 in the version and affidavit paragraph no.7 admitted that there is a problem in earthing point of the complainant’s house hence, the compressor has failed.  Warranty clause which is on page no.19 of the manual says that the 4 or 9 (selected model) year warranty of compressor will continue even after the expiry of one year period from the date of purchase.  The warranty covers compressor only.  Gas/gas charging will be charged to the customer.  The opponent no.2 in the written version and affidavit evidence admitted that the compressor of the refrigerator purchased by complainant through opponent no.1 on 15/06/2017 has  failed.  This complaint has been filed on 13/06/2018 within one year from the date of purchase of refrigerator on 15/06/2017.  This shows that the compressor has failed within one year from the date of purchase as such it is the obligation on the opponents to replace the compressor as per warranty clause. 

10. Section  2(1)(r ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  defines “Unfair Trade Practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provisions of any service, adopts any unfair methods or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely ;

1. The practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation;

1. Falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;
2. to (iv)   xxx
   7.  

Where a defence is raised to the effect that such warranty or guarantee is based on adequate or proper test, the burden of proof such a defence shall lie on the person raising such a defence.

The opponent No.2 in the written version and affidavit evidence pleaded that it has invested very hugely in research and development using etc.The opponent admitted that the compressor of the complainant refrigerator has failed.The opponent has taken a specific defence that the compressor is failed due to earthing of the complainant’s house.The opponent further stated that the copy of the literature showing the technical reason in failure is herewith produced.In fact the opponent no.2 has not produced any documents including the alleged literature.The burden is on the opponent no.2 to prove that the compressor has failed due to earthing problem of the complainant house.The opponent no.2 would have produced the technician report of a person who inspected the complainant’s house electrical wiring including earthing point.Therefore, in view of the absence to prove the said allegations by opponent no.2 there is no other option to hold that the compressor was mal functioning within one year of the warranty period of the refrigerator.Therefore, it is obligation on the part of the opponents to replace a new refrigerator in place of the defective refrigerator supplied to the complainant within two months from the date of order.The complainant has not asked the quantum of compensation and not mentioned for which reason he is entitled for the same.Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Mr. A.P. Devaiah s/o. A.P. Poonacha is partly allowed directing the opponent no.1 and 2 to replace the defective refrigerator with a new functioning refrigerator to the complainant within two months from the date of order.  Alternatively the opponents  may refund the price of the refrigerator a sum of Rs.23,500/- within two months from the date of order.
2. In case the opponents failed to comply with the order within two months the amount carries interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. on 13/06/2018 till payment or compliance of the order.
3. It is further ordered that the opponents shall liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 2 months and in case they fail to pay the said amount it carries interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13/06/2018 till realization.
4. Furnish copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 02^ndday of February, 2019)

                                                      (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                          PRESIDENT 

                                                  (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                           MEMBER