Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/323/2014

Meenakshi Gupta W/o Ramesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gera Vision - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Verma

23 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                                 Complaint No…. 323 of 2014.

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 31.7.2014.

                                                                                                 Date of decision: 23.4.2015

Meenakshi Gupta wife of Sh. Ramesh Gupta, resident of House No. 8, Officer Colony, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Gera Vision, Main Road, Vishnu Nagar, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamuna Nagar through  its Prop./owner.  

2. Consumer Care Service Centre of L.G. India Limited Near Bus Stand, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.

3. M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Limited Regd. Office-A-27, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.  

 

                                                                                                                  …opposite parties.

                        Complaint under section 12 of            

                        the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:          SH. A.K.SARDANA PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Pankaj Verma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               OP No.1 ex-parte.      

                Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

             

 

ORDER

 

                        Brief facts leading to the institution of present complaint are that the complainant purchased a refrigerator No. JC-4901513 Make L.G. for a sum of Rs. 44,000/- from the OP No.1 vide bill No. 382 dated 14.5.2010. Since the purchase of abovesaid refrigerator, its cooling is very low and gives bad performance. After four months of its purchase, the motor of cooling fan and compressor are not working properly and the same were repaired by the OPs. After few months of repair, in the month of July 2012, the refrigerator in question again started creating problems and cracks were developed in the door of the fridge and rubber of the door was not fixed with the door in a proper manner. The complainant approached OP No.2 i.e. service care centre of the company so many times for the repair/ removal of defect of the refrigerator or replacement of defective refrigerator in question but of no use. At the time of repair, so many dents have been made by the engineer of company on the door of the refrigerator which are looking very bad. All this has happened due to negligence of engineer of the company.  The complainant lodged so many complaints to the toll free number of the company and visited the service centre of the company so many times but they did not bother to check the refrigerator in question. In the month of July 2013, complaint was again made to the OP No.2 regarding non functioning of refrigerator because refrigerator caught fire due to some technical defect in the compressor or some other parts of refrigerator. The engineer of the company checked the refrigerator and carried out some repair and at the time of repair suggested to the complainant to send the refrigerator in the workshop of the Op No.2. After checking the refrigerator in question, the OPs asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 12,000/- as estimated cost of compressor and door. At the time of purchase of refrigerator, Ops had given full warranty and guarantee for 7 years but after some months, the refrigerator started creating problems. The complainant made so many requests to the company verbally as well as telephonically for the repair of refrigerator but of no use and  till date the refrigerator is lying in dead condition and without door. There is a great negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs besides unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical as well as financial harassment. In the end, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs. 44000/- to her alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses etc. 

2.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service through registered post and as such was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.9.2014 whereas OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement jointly wherein it has been urged that the refrigerator of the complainant is out of warranty as the same was purchased on 14.5.2010. There is one year complete warranty pertaining to the defects of the refrigerator and thereafter there is extended warranty of four years for its compressor. The complainant has never registered any complaint with the answering OPs despite the fact that the OP No.3 i.e. L.G. Electronics has provided the facility of toll free customer care No. 18001809999 to the consumers to enable them to lodge their complaint directly with the company for Redressal of their grievances of defect at the earliest. Moreover, the company has its authorized service centre in almost each and every District/City where also complaints regarding the product can be lodged by the consumer. The story so put in by the complainant is purely a concocted one, so as to extract money illegally from the OP and to get her refrigerator replaced with a new one from the OPs. If there is any problem as alleged by the complainant, the same might have occurred due to the mishandling of the product at the hands of the complainant. The answering OPs denied that their service engineer had ever visited the premises of the complainant as she has failed to lodge even a single complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs in the interest of justice.  

3.                     To prove her case, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Annexure CX and documents as Annexures C-1 to C-6 and closed her evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for the OPs No. 2 & 3 tendered affidavit of one Shri Jyoti Prasad Chaturvedi Authorized Signatory, M/s L.G. Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. working as Branch Service Manager with OP No.3 as annexure RX and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. From the perusal of Annexure C-1,  it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased refrigerator on 14.5.2010 by paying a sum of Rs. 44,000/- to the OP No.1  and as per version of complainant said refrigerator became defective after four months of its purchase  and was not properly repaired by the OP No.2 i.e. service centre of OP company and thus the complainant contacted the OP No.3  so many times for repair and removal of defects of refrigerator but the OPs No.2 & 3  have denied the aforesaid version of the complainant rather stated that the complainant has never contacted them even on toll free number.  Further, from the perusal of Annexure C-2, it is also admitted fact on record that the refrigerator of the complainant was having a warranty of one year on all parts and additional warranty of four years on compressor from the date of its purchase i.e. in total five years from the date of purchase on compressor meaning thereby that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator on 14.5.2010 from the OP No. 1 and filed complaint before the Forum on 31.7.2014 for redressal of her grievances i.e. within the additional warranty period but the OPs did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant even by rectifying the defects of refrigerator during the pendency of the case which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3. Besides it, to prove her case, complainant at the time of filing of the complaint, moved an application for the appointment of local commissioner whereupon, the principal of Industrial Training Institute, Yamuna Nagar was directed to depute any technical expert or instructor posted in ITI as local commissioner who is having knowledge in the trade of refrigeration/ A.C. etc. to inspect the refrigerator in dispute after issuing prior notices to both the parties and submit report qua door, cooling or any other problem of noise etc. and accordingly Sh. Malkit Kumart Instructor so appointed as local commissioner inspected the refrigerator in question in the presence of representatives of OPs No.1 to 3 and made the following reports: -

1.                     The door of the refrigerator does not close properly as the hinges of the door are not in a proper manner to close it. Besides this, the refrigerator in question is a single door refrigerator and due to non closing of door freezer does not freeze ice.

2.                     The dents of the door of refrigerator show that it has been repaired twice or thrice earlier by the mechanic and there is large gap between gas kit and chassis of fridge.

3.                     There is a leakage of cooling due to non closing of door of refrigerator properly and it gives very low cooling.

4.                     There is vibration and very noise in the compressor of refrigerator which shows that the compressor of refrigerator has already been repaired many times and seems to be in old condition.

5.                     Due to non functioning of refrigerator it gives bad smell.

                        In the end, the local commissioner has opined that “the defects of refrigerator cannot be removed after its repair and these are manufacturing defects”. From the perusal of the case file, it reveals that the OPs have neither raised any objection on the report of Local Commissioner inspite of the fact that the inspection of refrigerator was done in the presence of their representatives nor repaired the  refrigerator of the complainant during the pendency of the case which is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

                        Therefore, in view of the facts narrated above, we are of the confirmed view that Ops No.2 & 3 have failed to provide proper services to the complainant qua the refrigerator in question and thus they are guilty of providing deficient services to the complainant. Hence, in these circumstances, we have no option except to allow the present complaint and thus we direct the Ops  No.2 & 3 to replace the defective refrigerator in question with a new one of the same model & price and if the same model is not available, then to refund the cost of refrigerator in question to the complainant within 30 days from the communication  of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 44,000/-  from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation. The complaint is allowed in above terms.  Copies of this order be sent to parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 23.4.2015.

                                                                                    (A.K.SARDANA )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.