BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 21st day of December 2013
Filed on : 06/03/2012
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.130/2012
Between
T.P. George, : Complainant
S/o. Paulose, Thalappillymattathil, (By Adv. George Cherian
Kokkapilly P.O., Karippaparambil HB 48,
Thiruvankulam-682-305. Panampilly Nagar,
Kochi-682 036.
Vs
1.M/s. LG Electronics India (P) Ltd., : Opposite parties
Opp. India vision, (parties-in-person)
Padivattom, Kochi-682 025.,
rep. by its Manager.
2. L.G. Shoppe, M/s. LG Electronics
India (P) Ltd., Kadavanthara,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 020,
rep by its Manager.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased an air conditioner on 04-03-2009 from the 2nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 27,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as installation charges. The cooling of the air conditioner was not satisfactory. At the instance of the complainant the second opposite party serviced the machine through M/s. Power Point, the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party. Since there was no change in the performance of the machine on 03-6-2009 the complainant issued a letter to the 2nd opposite party highlighting his grievances. The service personnel of the authorized service centre had done the servicing once then power supply was not there. The complainant insisted for an invoice for the gas charging and the service personnel issued an over written invoice for an amount of Rs. 1,765/-. The complainant again issued a letter to the opposite parties dated 20-10-2011 to take steps for the proper performance of the air conditioner. The 2nd opposite party sent a reply stating their inability to take any further action. Thereafter the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties to which they sent a reply raising untenable contentions. Since the air conditioner having ceased to function the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the machine with interest together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:
On 04-03-2009 the complainant purchased a split Air Conditioner from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The service officials of the 1st opposite party have visited the place of the complainant to provide service whenever required. The complainant was satisfied with the service done by the opposite parties. The refrigerant pipe of the air conditioner was found to be damaged due to fall of some heavy object. As soon as the complainant made the complaint the service officials visited the place and rectified the same. The amount of Rs. 1,750/- was incurred as service charge. The said complaint can not be considered as a manufacturing defect of the product. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. There is no manufacturing defect to the Air Conditioner and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the
machine?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs
of the proceedings from the opposite parties?
5. Point No. i. On 04-03-2009 the complainant purchased a split Air Conditioner from the 2nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 27,000/- which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party evident from Ext. A1 retail invoice. One year warranty has been provided by the 1st opposite party for the machine. According to the complainant time and again he had to approach the opposite parties to get the defects of the machine repaired to which there was no response. It is stated that since the machine suffers from inherent manufacturing defect he is entitled to get refund of its price from the opposite parties. On the contrary the opposite parties vehemently contented that the air conditioner of the complainant is free from any defect. It is pertinent to note that Ext. A2 letter issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dated 20-10-2011 is beyond the period of the warranty offered by the 1st opposite party. Ext. A3 is the reply to Ext. A2 letter issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant which reads as follows:
“Dear valuable customer
We are received your letter on last week
On the same day we are forwarding the same to our service branch manager MR SHINU S KOTTARAM through mail (Shinus, Kottaram@ lge.com) and inform him and Ernakulam service centre (POWER POINT) through telephone. Both these people said they will take necessary action as early as possible. After all we will follow up the same three times. On 11-11-2011 you are calling me what action take against the letter? S.G&CO(LG SHOPPE) is a retail counter and we are not providing service. We will give correct direction to get service to customers. So we are doing our level best and i am helpless for the further things.
So you may take necessary action for getting service.”
6. In furtherance of Ext. A3 reply the complainant caused to issue Ext. A4 lawyer notice to the opposite parties and the service centre of the 1st opposite party. Against which the opposite parties sent Ext. A6 reply raising their own contentions. It is evident from the records that the opposite parties failed to provide adequate service to the complainant’s machine. Though the opposite parties contented that the defect of the machine was caused due to the fall of some heavy object, nothing is on record to substantiate the same. Admittedly the opposite parties rectified the said defect of the mechine by accepting Rs. 1,750/-, however the defect persisted. In short the complainant could not use the air conditioner due to the persistent defects of the same and failure of the opposite parties to repair the same in time the consumer has been put to unnecessary inconveniences and go to the extend of litigation. However since the warranty of the machine is already over the complainant is entitled to get the defects of the machine repaired free of cost which will sufficiently redress the grievance of the consumer. Our finding is based on the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. Vs. Roop Chand & Ors 1 (2013) CPJ 141 (NC).
7. Point No. ii. Admittedly the complainant had to run from pillar to post to get his grievances redressed before approaching this forum. Had the opposite parties given adequate service as and when required by the complainant this complaint could have been avoided. Thereby the complainant was constrained to approach this forum to get his grievances ventilated which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings. We fix it at Rs. 5,000/- and 1,000/- respectively.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally rectify the defects of the air conditioner of the complainant and make it in working condition free of cost. If this Machine is not in a repairable condition they shall replace the machine with a new one of the same model . In that event the complainant is to return the machine in question to the opposite parties at their cost.
ii. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally also pay Rs. 5,000/- and 1,000/- respectively to the complainant towards compensation and costs of the proceedings for the reasons stated above.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013.
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Exbt. A1 : Form No. 8B Retail Invoice cash/credit.
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 20-10-2011
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 12-11-2011
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 28-11-2011
A5 : A.D. card
A6 : Copy of reply notice
Opposite party’s exhibits: : Nil
Deposition s
PW1 :T.P. George
