BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                    Complaint No: 728 of 21.10.2014.                                                                      Date of Decision: 27.07.2015

Kiran Gupta wife of Naresh Gupta, resident of 51, Sant Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

.… Complainant

Versus 

1. M/S. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office A-27, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/Authorized Representative.

IInd Address: Awing IIIrd Floor, D-3, District Central Sakat, New Delhi-110017.

2. Bedi Sales Pvt.Ltd., 2618, Ferozepur Road, Near Hotel Nagpal Regency, Ludhiana through its Director/Authorized Signatory/Authorized Representative.

3. LGEIL, Village Jhande, Near Baddhoal, Railway Station, Opposite Ferozepur Road,Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                             Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

Present:      Sh. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate for OP1 and OP3.

                   OP2 exparte.

ORDER

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed Kiran Gupta wife of Naresh Gupta, resident of 51, Sant Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/S. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office A-27, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/Authorized Representative  and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)-  with a prayer to issue directions to the OPs to replace the washing machine with new one besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension and agony.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one LG washing machine LG W/M/ Fatl-T8018AEEP5.ASSP on 13.09.2012 amounting to Rs.33,000/- from OP1 through OP2 vide invoice No.2227 dated 13.09.2012 and at the time of purchase of said machine, the guarantee upon the same was also provided by OPs and the OP2 also assured the complainant that in case any problem was found in the working of the said machine the same would be rectified by both OPs and in case the said problem would not be rectified then the said machine would be changed and as such the complainant purchased the said machine up on the assurance of the respondents. Thereafter, the complainant started using the said machine and during said period the complainant noted that machine has taken double time from the time set by her in the said machine for washing the clothes  and the complainant also informed the OP1 on toll free number and the engineer of OP1 and 2 came to the house of complainant  and he repaired the said machine, but after some time, the said machine again given same problem and the complainant again informed the respondent No.1 in the month of May, 2013 and on the day, again one engineer of the respondents came to the house of the complainant and he repaired the said machine, but thereafter in the month of July, 2013 the said machine totally stopped the work and the complainant informed OP1 and thereafter the officials of OP1 took the said machine from the  house of complainant in the service centre of OPs and where the said machine was lying for 20 days and even after 20 days, the officials of the respondents returned the said machine after repairs. After three months, the said machine has again started given earlier same problem and the complainant again informed  the respondent No.1 on toll free number and on the next day again the official of OP1 came to the house of the complainant and again repaired the said machine and at that time the complainant told the said official that why the said machine has given said problem again and again but the said officials failed to vie any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Thus, claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice, the OP2 failed to appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.01.2015. However, OP1 and OP3 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is a gross misuse of process of law. The complainant has concealed the true facts from this Forum; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the OPs. The washing machine in question was out of warranty at the time of filing the present complaint. the OPs have never denied after sale service to the complainant but now on chargeable basis as the washing machine is out of warranty, which was purchased on 13.09.2012. Further stated that the performance of the washing machine depends upon physical handling of the product and the complainant has not been handling the washing machine  properly, otherwise, there was no inherent defect in the machine.  The washing machine was duly installed at the house of the complainant on13.09.2012 and demo regarding its working and clearing of filters was duly explained to complainant. On 20.04.2013 in home service was provided on the call of complainant. On inspection by service engineer the filter was found not clean which was done by service engineer. On 30.12.2013 in home service was provided to the complainant. The problem was due to partial blocking of inlet valve. The complainant was guided about how to clean the water inlet valve. There was no other defect in the washing machine. On 20.05.2014, in home service was provided to complainant. The problem was due to non-cleaning of filter. The filter was cleaned and washing machine was OK. On merits, denied the contents of the corresponding paras of the complaint, while admitting  the facts that the complaint was lodged on 20.05.2014 for the house service, which was provided by the Service Engineer who checked the washing machine and found that the water filter was not clean and was blocked, as the complainant had not cleaned the same regularly. By controverting the facts of the complaint prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Evidence was adduced by learned counsel for the complainant by way of tendering duly sworn affidavit of complainant, Ex.CA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP1 and OP3 tendered affidavit  of Sucha Singh, Branch Senior Manager of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, Ex. RA, wherein again same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and closed the evidence of OP1 and OP3.

5.                The case was fixed for arguments. Learned counsel for complainant argued orally that the said washing machine was purchased on 13.09.2012 for an amount of Rs.33,000/- from OP1 through OP2 vide  invoice No.2227 dated 13.09.2012 and at the time of purchase of the said machine, the guarantee upon the same was also provided by the OPs and OP2 also assured the complainant that in case any problem is occurred in working is machine, same would be rectified by them and in case problem is not rectified then the said machine will be changed  but machine got defected and in the month of May, 2013, same was repaired by the OPs. Thereafter, in the month of July, 2014 again the machine totally stopped working. Regular complaints were lodged before the OPs but the OPs failed to remove the defect in the said machine despite of the fact that they retained the said machine for 20 days. The machine remained faulty during the warranty period, as such, OPs are liable to rectify and remove all the defects, which the OPs have failed to do so. Counsel for complainant further argued that  the complainant be replaced with a new one along with heavy costs as compensation.

6.                Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld counsel for OPs argued the performance of the washing machine depends upon physical handling of the product and the complainant has not been handling the washing machine  properly, otherwise, there was no inherent defect in the machine.  The washing machine was duly installed at the house of the complainant on13.09.2012 and demo regarding its working and clearing of filters was duly explained to complainant. On 20.04.2013 in home service was provided on the call of complainant. On inspection by service engineer the water filter was found not clean which was done by service engineer. On 30.12.2013 in home service was provided to the complainant. The problem was due to partial blocking of inlet valve. The complainant was guided about how to clean the water inlet valve. There was no other defect in the washing machine. On 20.05.2014, in home service was provided to complainant. The problem was due to non-cleaning of filter. The filter was cleaned and washing machine was OK. On 20.05.2014 Service Engineer of OPs checked the washing machine and found that the water filter was not clean and was blocked, as the complainant had not cleaned the same regularly.

7.                We have gone through the pleadings of complainant and also perused the entire record placed on file.

8.                It is evident that the said machine was purchased by the complainant on 13.09.2012 from the OPs for Rs.33,000/- vide invoice Ex. C6 and guarantee for the washing machine was for 24 months, which is clearly mentioned in Ex. C7. The machine was installed by the Ops at the residence of the complainant. However, the machine went faulty just after elapse of 7 months, which the OPs have admitted in the written statement. The averments taken by the OPs that the washing machine remained faulty due to mishandling of the machine by the complainant. However, there is no expert opinion or any other  evidence to prove the  version of the OPs that there was any mishandling of the machine and there is no further evidence that how the water filter went faulty again and again and why the machine stopped working within a warranty.  It is the liability of the OPs that the OPs were fully liable to rectify the machine free of costs as the fault in the machine occurred within warranty period. This Forum is of the considered view that the Ops are found to be deficient in service.

11.     In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, same is allowed and the ops are directed to repair the said machine and make it functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. In case same is not repairable, same may be replaced with a new one or in case the same is not available, the full amount may be refunded to the complainant. Although OP2 has been proceeded against exparte but he cannot escape from his liability. All the OPs are jointly and severally burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/- compositely assessed as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The order be complied by the ops within 30 days on receipt of certified copy of the order. File be consigned to record room.

                                                          (S.P.Garg)                               (R.L.Ahuja)

                                                            Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:27.07.2015 

Gobind Ram