Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/115/2014

Nipun Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s L.G. Electroncis IndiaPvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sushil Garg

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 115 of 2014.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 19.02.2014       

                                                                                          Date of decision: 28.11.2016

 

Nipun Mittal aged 40 years, Son of Shri Surya Narain Mittal, resident of House no.1814 Surya Niwas, Civil Line Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuana Nagar.                                                                                                                                    

                                 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s L.G. Electronics India Private Limited, having its office at ‘A’ Wing (3^rd Floor) District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director (Manufacturer of L.G. refrigerator).
2. M/s L.G. Customer Care Service Centre near Arun Gupta Hospital, Sarni chowk Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor Shri Raj Kumar (Authorized Service Centre of L.G. Electronics). 

                                                                                                                                          ...Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Sushil Garg, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs.            

             

ORDER

 

 1.                     Complainant Nipun Mittal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the refrigerator in question with new one or to make the payment of Rs. 35,700/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had purchased a new Refrigerator double door, model 478YTX4 for his domestic use in the month of July, 2009 from M/s Nagpal’s World Vision, Gobindpuri  Road, Yamuna Nagar (manufactured by OP No.1 i.e. LG Electronics India Private Limited) vide cash memo no.436 dated 22.07.2009 and made the payment of Rs.35,700/- at the time of purchase and company gave five years guarantee/warrantee. After purchasing the Refrigerator in question, the upper door portion of the Refrigerator was freezing properly, but the lower door/bottom portion was not freezing the vegetables and other eatable articles kept in the Refrigerator. The complainant lodged complaints with the authorized dealer and brought into notice that bottom/ lower door portion of the Refrigerator in question was not freezing the articles kept in the same. The authorized dealer advised the complainant to visit the OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre of the OP No.1 regarding this complainant upon which he visited the Customer Care Centre of the OP No.2, who sent his Engineer many times but the said fault was not removed permanently. After that, OP No.2 asked the complainant to take Happy Living Plan of LG Company against the AMC for product in order to keep and maintain LG Refrigerator in proper order, upon which complainant paid Rs.3375/- to the OP No.2 on 20.02.2012 against valid receipt for better services for two years i.e. 20.02.2012 to 19.02.2014. Complainant made several complaints at LG Customer Service and every time one or other engineer of the LG Electronics visited the house of the complainant and poured hot water in the freezer and also changed some parts but the basic fault was not removed perhaps due to some manufacturing defect. Lastly, it has been prayed that as the OPs remains failed to remove the defect from the Refrigerator in question. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as refrigerator of the complainant has become out of Warrantee as the same was purchased on 22.07.2009; complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion that the refrigerator in question is not working properly; complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; no cause of action has arisen in this Forum; OPs company i.e. LG electronics is renowned company in the Electronics products and commodities from the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic products is highly sophisticated and on merits it is not denied that complainant purchased Refrigerator manufactured by the OPs Company, however, it has been submitted that Refrigerator in question was having Warrantee of five years means 1 year Warrantee on whole Refrigerator + 4 years Warrantee on the compressor only. It has been further mentioned that complainant lodged his first complaint with the OPs Company on 21.02.2012 vide complaint No.RNA120221042365 after almost 3 years of its purchase. The said complaint was resolved by the just adjusting the wire and the refrigerator was made to be in a perfect working condition. After this complaint, the complainant kept on lodging complaints  and the answering under Good Will Gesture each time resolved  all the problems and the Refrigerator was made in perfect working condition. The details of the complaints lodged by the complainant and the work done by the OPs Company is as follows :

Date                            Complaint Number                Work Done

21.12.2012                  RNA120221042365                 Wiring Adjusted.

04.03.2012                  RNA120304029976                 Gas Charging Done.

16.11.2012                  RNA121116019243                 Door Gasket Adjusted.

30.11.2012                  RNA121130091709                 Motor Replaced.

21.12.2012                  RNA121221082896                 Motor Replaced.

27.01.2013                  RNA130127030127                 Fan Motor Adjusted.

21.02.2013                  RNA130221024800                 Heater Plate Replaced.

11.03.2013                  RNA130311013732                 Assembly Replaced.

31.03.2013                  RNA130331039374                 Door Gasket Adjusted

27.10.2013                  RNA131027051313                 Drain Tray Adjusted

27.11.2013                  RNA131127086724                 Under Observation

24.12.2013                  RNA131224045778                 Heater Plate replaced

21.01.2014                  RNA140121024709                 PCB replaced.

13.02.2014                  RNA140213000294                 Adjustment done.

 

4.                     It has been further mentioned that complainant took the Happy Living Plan on 20.02.2012 after almost 3 years of the purchase of Refrigerator. But, If the complainant was unsatisfied/unhappy by the performance of the said refrigerator, he must not had spent Rs.3375/- for getting AMC after a span of 3 years. Lastly, it has been mentioned that refrigerator of the complainant is working properly hence no question arise to replace the same. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                     In support of his case, complainant tendering into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of bill bearing No.436 dated 22.07.2009 as Annex. C-1, photocopy of Warrantee Card as Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-3, photocopy of Happy Living Plan as Annexure C4 and photocopy of email of dated 22.01. 2014 as Annexure C-5 and C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand learned, counsel for the OPs tendering into evidence affidavit of Shri Jyoti Parshad Chaturvedi authorized signatory of the OPs as Annexure RW/A and copy of Inspection report of Local Commissioner from ITI, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R1 and closed evidence on behalf of OPs.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

8.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Refrigerator, Double Door, Model 478YTX4 from the authorized dealer  of the OPs Company  vide their Bill No. 436 dated 22.07.2009 for a sum of Rs.35,700/-. It is also not dispute that Refrigerator in question was having Warrantee of 5 years as detail i.e. 1 year warrantee on the whole Refrigerator + 4 years warrantee on the Compressor only. The only grievances of the complainant is that from the very beginning after purchase of Refrigerator, the lower door/bottom portion  was not freezing the vegetable and other eatable articles kept in the Refrigerator and in this regard he made so many complaints with the dealer as well as OPs company. On its detailed very number and despite that OPs company failed to remove the defect from the Refrigerator in question, hence the complainant is entitled to get refund Rs.35700/- i.e. cost of refrigerator along with compensation etc.  Learned counsel for the complainant draw attention toward the Para No.3 of the written statement filed by the OPs and argued that OPs Company has itself admitted that complainant has lodged so many complaints with the OPs Company and on each and every date OPs Company has replaced or repaired one part or other. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw attention towards receipt of AMC as Annexure C4 and argued that OPs Company has charged Rs.3375/- from the complainant on account of extended warrantee. On the other hand, Learned counsel for OPs hotly argued at length that as and when the complaint was lodged with the OPs Company the same was attended regularly and the defects whatsoever were removed free of cost by the Engineer of the OPs Company. Learned counsel for the OPs draws our attention towards Report of the Local Commissioner as Annexure (R1), who was appointed on the application moved by the complainant himself and argued that Local Commissioner has specifically mentioned in his report that Refrigerator is in working condition and maintaining the desired temperature in the Refrigerator Cabinet. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view there are deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as from perusal of Para No.3 of written statement on merit it is clearly evident that Refrigerator in question of the complainant was having defects due to which the complainant was forced to lodged the complaints again and again with the OPs Company. After going through the defects mentioned in Para No.3 of the Written statement, It is duly proved that OPs Company  has changed or replaced some parts of the Refrigerator  in question so many times. Even the motor of the Refrigerator has been shown replaced twice.

10.                   Although as per the report of Local Commissioner Annexure R1 the Refrigerator in question of the complainant is now in working condition and maintaining the temperature in cabinet properly. Even then we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to get relief as he has suffered loss of mental agony and harassment due to the defective refrigerator sold by the OPs company to the complainant. As the complainant has purchased the Refrigerator in question in the year 2009 and more than 7 years have already been lapsed so it will not be proper to order to replace the same with new one. However, complainant is entitled to get some relief.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to pay Rs.8000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and also to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within period of 30 days, failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 28.11.2016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                           MEMBER