Haryana

Ambala

CC/78/2019

Neeraj Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madaan Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

12 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint case No.:  78 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution  :  13.03.2019.

                                                          Date of decision     :  12.03.2021.

 

Neeraj Bhatia son of Late Shri J.L. Bhatia, aged about 61 years, resident of House No.171/5E, Rama Building near Vijay Rattan Chowk, Sadar Bazar Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Madaan Electronics Authorized dealer of L.G., SCO No.4-5, Jagadhari Road, near Punjab Kesari, Ambala Cantt.  
2. Advanced Electronics L.G. Authorized Service Centre, 1083/84, Bengali Mohalla, Old Aallu Godown near Haryana Bakery Ambala Cantt.
3. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Manufacturers of L.G. Refrigerators, 3^rd Floor, Nine x City Mart, Main Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurugram,122001.

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                                     

Present:       Shri Shaurya Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the cost of refrigerator i.e. Rs.84,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum or to replace the defective refrigerator.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant is about 61 years of age and is a retired Govt. employee. He had purchased a latest L.G. side by side refrigerator make and model No.DIOS LG GC L247 CLAVAPZ dated 14.03.2018, vide invoice No.G2551 for a sum of Rs.84,000/- including 28% GST, from the OP No.1 being the authorized dealer of the LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. OP No.3, who had given one year free insurance on the said refrigerator from the date of its purchase. Complainant paid Rs.40,000/- in cash (including installation) and the remaining amount was financed by Bajaj Finserv, for which he had to pay EMI of Rs.3,000/- P.M. for 15 months. The OP No.1 told the complainant that the said fridge is latest in the market having best features and had given one year warranty from the date of its purchase alongwith 10 years warranty for the compressor etc. After the purchase of said refrigerator the complainant and his family members kept using it. But the said refrigerator started giving trouble from the very beginning, but complainant and his family ignored it. However, in the month of June, 2018 when the problem in the said refrigerator increased further, then on 10.06.2018, vide request No.RNP180610013699, he had complained about the continuous water leakage from the water dispenser from the left door of the refrigerator and other related problems etc. The representatives/engineers of the company visited house of the complainant to detect the problem and after thorough check up they kept the complaint on hold to check it after another 2-3 days and when they visited again after 2-3 days they found the same problem and they were of the opinion that the left door is having a manufacturing defect and it needs to be changed at the very outset but no effort was made by the OPs to change the left door. After lot of hassles and visits to the shop of OPs No.1 & 2 and after many telephonic conversations, the left door of the refrigerator was got replaced. Issue of cooling, moisture, water drops and foul smell in cooked, semi cooked and raw products continues to persists and after a short span of time the problem increased further and every everything kept in the refrigerator started giving foul smell, then the complainant on 06.02.2019, had complained vide request No.RNP190206052685, regarding the cooling issue, foul smell from the food items kept in fridge. On 06.02.2019, the representatives/engineers, came to check and after thorough check up they had put a black coloured electric tape inside the refrigerator after detaching a part and then re-affixed it, which was temporary solution as per them for appropriate cooling and they told the complainant that they will come back within 2 days to check the status and had given their mobile number but none had came till date and the problem is still the same. After the visit of LG representatives/engineers on 06.02.2019, an unusual nasty sound was coming from the refrigerator, which was unbearable/un-tolerable. He made several telephonic calls to the representatives of OPs No.1 and 2, but none has come to redress the grievance of the complainant. He again on 28.02.2019, made a complaint vide request No.RNP190228013291, but like earlier no one had entertained his complaint. Again in the month of March 2019, on 7.3.2019, he made a complaint vide request No.RNP190307058120, but his complaint has not been entertained till yet. He lodged the said complaints from his mobile number as well as from the mobile number of his son. He also inquired from the toll free No.18001809999 of the LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., about the status of the previous complaints and it was conveyed to him that there is no status, which confirms that the complaint of the complainant is resolved or there is any visit of LG representatives/engineers of OPs No.1 and 2 to the house of the complainant after 06.02.2019. On 12.03.2019, he sent an e-mail to the company regarding the complaint at Service India @ LGE.com, but the OPs neither took any action nor replied the said e-mail. He made every possible effort to resolve the issue, but nothing was done by the OPs. As such he left with no other alternative, but to file the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus-standi, cause of action, the complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Commission. On merits, it is stated that on 14.03.2018, complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question. On 10.06.2018, the complainant had lodged his complaint with the OP No.3. On 06.02.2019, the complainant lodged his second complaint. The service engineer when visited the premises of the complainant cleaned the duct of the refrigerator of the complainant and the refrigerator was made to be in perfect working condition. On 28.02.2019, complainant again lodged a complaint. The service engineer visited the premises of the complainant, checked the refrigerator and it was found to be in perfect working condition. On 07.03.2019, the complainant lodged another call/complaint. Upon receipt of this complaint, the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant, but he refused to get his refrigerator checked from him. The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainants were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith document as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Vikas Batra, Authorized Signatory, M/s L.G. Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd., as Annexure OP3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, Annexure C-1 is tax invoice dated 14.03.2018, vide which the complainant purchased the fridge in question from the OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.3. The grievance of the complainant is that the fridge in question got defective immediately after its purchase and he approached the OPs repeatedly for rectification of its defects, but they failed to rectify the defects occurred in it, which proves that fridge in question is having inherent defect in it. On the contrary, the stand of the OPs is that the fridge got defective due to mishandling and needful was done as and when complainant approached the service centre. The complainant had filed an application for inspection of the said fridge from some expert. For the just and proper adjudication of the case, same was allowed and fridge in question was inspected by the Ref. & AC expert of Govt. ITI Ambala City, who submitted his report Annexure C5. From the said report it is abundantly clear that the fridge in question was defective. The said report of the expert has not been challenged by the OPs. The Ld. counsel for the complainant has averred that since the fridge in question got defective from the very beginning from the date of its purchase and the complainant had lost his faith in the manufacturer, therefore OPs may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.84,000/- i.e. price/cost of the defective fridge. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retails Ltd. 2014 (1) CLT, wherein it was held that in the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning, it is always better to order for refund of the amount, because replacement of the product will never satisfy the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product. If the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment, because he had to fight another bond of litigation, which will be highly torturous. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Jugnu Dhillon (supra), we hold that the OP No.1 being seller and OP No.3 being manufacturer are liable to refund the amount of Rs.84,000/- i.e. the cost of the refrigerator in question to the complainant. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant along with litigation expenses. Since, the OP No.2 is merely a service centre, therefore no liability can be fastened against it with regard to refund of the cost of the refrigerator and the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.2 and allow the same against OPs No.1 and 3 and direct them in the following manner:-

1.           To refund the amount of Rs.84,000/- i.e. the cost of the refrigerator in question to the complainant.
2.           To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical     harassment suffered by the complainant
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

                   The OPs No.1 and 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally, within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which awarded amount besides litigation cost i.e. Rs.84,000/- + Rs.5,000/- shall carry interest @ 5% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 12.03.2021

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)                      (Ruby Sharma)         (Neena Sandhu)                    Member                                         Member                     President