Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/626/2018

Chanchal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	626/2018
Date of Institution	:	06.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	15.07.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Chanchal s/o Sh.Chaman Lal r/o House No.2552, Sector 39-C, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A Wing (3^rd Floor), D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi-110017.
2. Regional Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area Phase-2, 157, Dakshin Marg, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh -160002.
3. Mehar Electronics (Authorized LG Store), SCO 373, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh -160036.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

                Complainant in person.

                Sh.Arjun Grover, Advocate for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a LG Home Theater (5.1) for Rs.30,500/- from OP No.3-Mehar Electronics, Chandigarh (Authorized Store of LG). After three years of its working, the system suddenly malfunctioned and a message ‘s-protection mode” started appearing on the product.  Upon his complaint, the Service Engineer of the Company namely Sh.Kushal Jain inspected the product and informed him that the motherboard was required to be replaced costing Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- to which he gave his consent. After few days, he received a call from one Mr.Ashish that the spare part was not available with the company. The complainant requested that he is ready to bear the cost of the repairs but he was informed that the said spare part became obsolete item and the same could not be arranged from the company throughout India.  It has further been averred that the Service Engineer informed him that if he provides the bill of the product, he would take up the matter with the company headquarter. The complainant informed him that he had lost the bill. After few days, he received a response from the company “Nsp part (PRP180824002757 EBR77133501(PCB Assembly) & no bill with customer Commercial Solution mail from Ho is attached so cancel the call”. It has further been averred that the Company at the time of selling its products promised all the services but now they refused to repair the product in question.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, the OPs took a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he has failed to produce the purchase invoice. It has further been pleaded that the complainant for the first time approached the OP-Company on 23.08.2018 and in response to which the OP-Company immediately sent its service engineer who after inspection diagnosed that the PCB of the product in question requires to be replaced.  He also informed the complainant that since the model of the product is outdated the parts of the same would hardly be available with the OP-Company as the Company no more manufacturers the same model.  It has further been pleaded that the service engineer suggested the complainant either to buy the new upgraded model after paying the difference as per the depreciation policy or to get the refund of the product as per the depreciation policy of the OP-Company to which he agreed and asked the service engineer to take up the matter with the Company. On being asked for the date of purchase and bill, the complainant failed to provide the same.  It has further been pleaded that after few days the OP-Company called the complainant to send the bill so that the process as per depreciation policy could be initiated but he failed to show any bill. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         In view of the specific objection taken by the OPs in their written statement, the first question to be determined in this case is as to whether the complainant is a consumer qua the OPs as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For proper decision of this question, the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) defining the ‘consumer’ is extracted as under:-

“(d)   "Consumer" means any person who, -

(i)     buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

 

5.         As per the aforesaid provisions reproduced above, a consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.
6.         In the instant case, the complainant has alleged to have purchased the product in question from OP No.3 but he has not been able to adduce on record the photocopy of the invoice of the product in question and in the absence of the same, it cannot be concluded that he has paid any consideration for the purchase of the product in question to OP No.3 or he is the beneficiary with the approval of the purchaser. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer qua the OPs as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to avail the benefit of the depreciation policy of the Company by showing the copy of the bill of the product in question to the OP-Company.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15/07/2019                                          

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER