Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that the complainant had purchase a Washing Machine of L.G. Company (10 Kg) Model P10YOSRAZ bearing Sr. No. 008NWSN147351 from Opposite Party No. 1 vide Bill/Invoice No. 1255, dated 11.06.2021 for an amount of Rs. 15,500/- including other charges alongwith its insurance of Opposite Party No. 2 and as such the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. However, just after few days from the purchase of above said washing machine, the wash drum area of the machine was become defective and for the purpose of washing the clothes, when the complainant tried to store the water in the wash drum of the machine then the same was leaked and the water did not store in the wash drum of the machine. Thereafter the complainant approached to the opposite party No. 1 and requested to repair/replace the above said washing machine from the opposite party No. 2 then opposite party No.1 demanding money from the complainant for change the part of washing tub of the above said machine but as the washing machine is under guarantee so the complainant refused to pay any money to the opposite party No.1. Thereafter the complainant has been visiting to the opposite party No. 1 many a times to sought out the matter and requested to repair/replace the above said washing machine but neither the opposite party No.1 nor the opposite party No. 2 return/replace the washing machine of the complainant. The complainant having hope that his washing machine got repaired/replace by the opposite parties as the L.G. Company is worldwide and very famous company which would never let down its customers and would provide a complete service, if needed to its customers but the opposite parties have completely failed to maintain its image and to give the service to its customers like the complainant. These actions of opposite parties are nothing, short of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment at the hands of opposite parties. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint complainant has sought the following reliefs:

a)       Opposite parties may be directed to repair/replace the above said washing machine of the complainant or refund the amount of Rs.15,500/- i.e. price of the washing machine to the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase of said washing machine till its realization.

b)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and harassment as well as mental agony suffered by the complainant.

c)       To pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of complaint.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

2        Opposite party no.1 appeared in person and filed written reply stating that the complainant purchased the washing machine in question from him on June 2021 and the said washing machine got defective within 3 to 4 months and being salesman he has no concern with regard to repair and guarantee of the machine. It is mentioned on that bill guarantee and warranty is of the company and not dealer.

3.       Opposite party no.2 filed the written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that it is very apparent from the face of that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of answering respondent by filing frivolous claim. The complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. The product in question i.e. washing machine has been alleged to be purchased on 11-06-2021 but it has been mishandled by complainant. The washing machine carries a standard warranty of one year which is subject to warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in warranty card supplied with the product. As per warranty terms and conditions physical damage is warranty void condition and repair will be done on chargeable basis only. The complainant has reported problem in washing machine and lodged complaint on 6-09-2021. The said complaint was duly attended by the service engineer. On checking the washing machine it was found that TUB of the machine has been physically damaged as there was hole at the bottom of TUB due to which water kept leaking from the said hole. Due to physical damage caused to the product it was not covered under warranty and repair and replacement of the TUB will be done on chargeable basis only. The estimate of repair was given to complainant. But complainant refused to get the washing machine repaired on chargeable basis. Hence, the washing machine could not be repaired. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent. Therefore present complaint merits dismissal. Complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Commission as he has concealed the true and material facts. The complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands. The complainant till date has reported problem once in his washing machine with the respondent which was a physical damage caused due to mishandling on the part of complainant. Complainant intentionally with ulterior motive has now filed the present complaint alleging totally false allegations and concealed the true facts. Thus present complaint merits dismissal for concealment of true facts. The complainant himself has been negligent in using the washing machine and caused physical damage to the TUB of the washing machine. The complainant has concealed the material and necessary information that the obligation of the answering respondent under warranty is to set right the washing machine by repairing or replacing the defective part within one year of its purchase as the warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase. As per the information with the answering respondent the washing machine has been physically damaged which is a warranty void condition and repair would be done on chargeable basis only. The complainant has neither alleged any specific ir-repairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. "In the absence of any independent expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed." The complainant claims the said washing machine to be suffering from DEFECTS, therefore, it is the legal duty, under the discharge of burden, upon the complainant to establish the same by TECHNICAL EXPERT REPORT but no such report has been adduced by the complainant till date before this Commission, in the absence of any such TECHNICAL EXPERT REPORT the complaint of the complainant cannot be decided as per the provisions of C.P. Act 2019. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the answering respondent to file the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of answering Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.       In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3.

5        To rebut the evidence of complainant, Sh.Satpal Singh, Proprietor of opposite party no.1 tendered evidence his affidavit Ex.OP1/1. Whereas, opposite party no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Rishab Kumar Jain, Branch Service Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Ex.OP2/1.

6.       We have gone through the evidence, facts and documents placed on record by both the parties and we have also considered the rival contentions of ld. counsel for both the parties. The only grievance of the complainant is that after 3 to 4 months of purchasing the machine in question, it was not working properly as there is a hole in the Tub of the machine. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 in its written version as well as duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Rishab Kumar Jain Ex.OP2/1 has specifically and strenuously admitted that the complaint of the complainant regarding the defect in machine has duly been attended by the service engineer and on checking it was found that Tub of the machine has been physically damaged as there was hole at the bottom of tub due to which water kept leaking from the said hole. It is further contended that due to physical damage caused to the product it was not covered under warranty and repair and the replacement of the Tub will be done on chargeable basis only. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of ld. counsel for opposite party no.2. Perusal of the record shows that machine in question has been purchased by the complainant on 11.06.2021 and the complainant is suffering badly due to non functioning of newly purchased machine by the complainant, as such, it cannot ordered that the Tub of the machine in question can be replaced on chargeable basis.

9.       Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and we direct opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the old Tub of machine in question with new one of same make and model, free of costs. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission