BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 566 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 19.09.2019
Date of Decision : 16.03.2022.
Ajay Kumar aged about 42 years son of Shri Nand Lal, resident of Gali Lachhman Dass Arora Wali, Rori Bazaar, Sirsa, District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Proprietor, M/S L.B. Electronics, Sadar Bazar Sirsa now M/s Sargam.
2. L.G. Customer Care Centre, Golchha Wali Gali, Bhadra Bazaar, Sirsa.
3. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Udyog Vihar, Noida.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. Som Nath Grover, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kapil Dev, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 & 3.
Opposite party no.1 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that op no.1 is distributor of products of LG company, op no.2 is the authorized customer care centre and op no.3 is the manufacturer of LG products. The complainant visited to the shop of op no.1 for purchase of one refrigerator and op no.1 preferred him to purchase refrigerator of LG company and also gave every type of assurances about its best quality and as such complainant had purchased double door LG refrigerator bearing Model No. GC217BPJK from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- vide invoice No.27141 dated 26.6.2021. Its ten years warranty was also given.
2. It is further averred that in the month of May, 2015, the said refrigerator stopped working properly and its compressor started releasing undesired voice. The complainant made complaints to the company in the month of May, 2015 and also on 25.6.2015, 30.6.2015 and on 2.8.2015 and then engineer of the company visited him and on checking it was informed to him that compressor has become workless and needs replacement. That thereafter on his several requests and only after serving a legal notice upon ops, the refrigerator was repaired and compressor was installed and it was assured that it will not give any problem in future. It is further averred that thereafter in the month of May, 2016 again problem occurred regarding cooling of the fridge and on his complaint made to Customer Care Centre, the capacitor and PCB main were replaced and charged a sum of Rs.5452/- from the complainant vide receipt No.00745, whereas the product was under period of warranty and ops had no right to charge any such amount from him.
3. That in March, 2017 again refrigerator stopped working and as such on 5.4.2017, complainant got served legal notice upon ops but to no effect. Therefore, complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No. 197 of 2017 wherein the ops no.2 and 3 were directed to make necessary repairs in the refrigerator in question and to make it defect free even by replacing any part without cost within 20 days and it was further ordered that in case the same is found by the expert of the ops that same is not repairable due to any manufacturing defect, then the ops shall be liable to replace the same with a new one of same make and model within further period of 15 days. That ops replaced some parts of the refrigerator and stated that same has now become defect free but thereafter, in the month of May, 2017 same has again become useless and stopped working as there is manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. The complainant made complaint to the ops and some mechanics of ops visited him and inspected the refrigerator and stated that same is not repairable and as per order passed by this Commission, same is now replaceable with fresh one. That on account of above act and poor services of ops, on 10.6.2019 complainant had purchased a new refrigerator for a sum Rs.98,000/- and therefore, complainant is entitled to refund of the price of aforesaid refrigerator i.e. Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest and is also entitled to compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
4. On notice, ops no.2 and 3 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that above said order of this Forum had been complied with and the necessary repairs had been made to the refrigerator of complainant and made in perfect working condition. All other contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.1 did not appear despite service of notice and therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C4 and Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of ops no.2 and 3 be read in evidence and no separate evidence is required to be given.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
9. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. From the copy of cash/ credit memo dated 26.6.2021 Ex.C1, it is evident that complainant purchased refrigerator in question on 26.6.2021 for a consideration of Rs.70,000/- with warranty of 10 years. In the month of May, 2015, the refrigerator stopped working properly and its compressor started releasing undesired voice. The complainant has also placed on file copy of invoice Ex.C3, the perusal of which reveals that on 25.5.2016 i.e. during warranty period, refrigerator in question was repaired and an amount of Rs.5452/- was charged from the complainant on account of repair. Thereafter, also on the order of the Forum dated 30.10.2017, refrigerator was repaired by replacing some parts, but despite repair for twice, the refrigerator could not be made defect free and was not properly function and as per report of Mechanic of Swami Refrigeration, the refrigerator is not repairable and as such the complainant had to purchase a new refrigerator for a sum of Rs.98,000/- as is evident from copy of invoice dated 10.6.2019. So, complainant has established on record that refrigerator in question is not repairable and has stopped functioning after three years i.e. within warranty period of 10 years. Since complainant has already purchased a new refrigerator of Samsung Company for a sum of Rs.98,000/- therefore, complainant is entitled to refund of the price of refrigerator of LG company purchased from op no.1 manufactured by op no.3 after deduction of amount of depreciation. The act and conduct of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- (i.e. after deduction of Rs.20,000/- as depreciation amount for three years from price of Rs.70,000/-) to the complainant. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the ops as per law. The complainant will hand over the refrigerator in question to the authorized representative of ops well in time against proper receipt. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 16.03.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
(JK)
