BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 30^th day of November 2013

Filed on : 05-06-2012

PRESENT:

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No. 334/2012

Between

Rakesh S. Rajan, : Complainant

Karthika House, Vazhakulam P.O., (By Adv. Tom Joseph,

Muvattupuzha-686 670. Court road, Muvattupuzha)

Vs

1. M/s. LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties

Vasudeva Buildidng, T.D. Road, (1^st O.P. by Adv. Biju Hariharan

Ernakulam, Kochi-40. M/s. KNB Nair Associates,

2^nd Floor, Morning Star Buildings,

Kacheripady, Ernakulam, Kochi)

2. M/s. Cool mind Home Collections, (2^nd O.P. by Joy C. Paul, IIIrd

Vengalloor P.O., Floor, Seeman Chambers

Thodupuzha-685 584. A.L. Jacob road, Kochi-35)

O R D E R

Beena Kumari, Member.

The facts leading to this complaint are as follows:

The complainant purchased an LG Split Air Conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party on 02-03-2012 for Rs. 24,000/-, with one year warranty for the AC unit. The AC unit was installed in the complainant’s churidar shop which was run for the livelihood of the complainant. The LG split Air Conditioner was repaired several times and the opposite party replaced the display unit compressor and out door capacitor. But Air Conditioner unit is still not functional. Hence this complaint was filed before this Forum seeking refund of the cost of the LG split Air Conditioner.

2. The version filed by the opposite parties are as follows:

The 1^st opposite party stated that the 1^st opposite party had issued only functional warranty for one year, which means that the labour charges with regard to the complaints reported within one year of purchase will be free of cost that the 1^st opposite party had not offered any warranty for the product. It is also stated that the 2^nd opposite party does not have a vendor license to deal with fresh products of 1^st opposite party, that they can sell a fresh piece only after purchasing the same from an authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party that the 1^st opposite party is purchasing 2nd hand goods from various manufacturers including 1^st opposite party, that the complainant had purchased the product from 2^nd opposite party knowing fully well that the product is put up for second sale and 2nd the sale was conducted at discounted rate up to 40%, that the complainant is suppressing this fact from the notice of this Hon’ble Forum, that the 1^st opposite party had timely rectified the defects complained of then and there. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party on the other hand submitted in their version that the split Air Conditioner purchased by the complainant is a second hand Air Conditioner and it was purchased at the discounted price of Rs. 24,000/- as against the original cost of the product of Rs. 48,000/-, that the 2^nd hand Air conditioner has one year service warranty, that the service warranty is provided by the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party has no connection to the services done by the 1^st opposite party. It is therefore requested that the complaint against 2^nd opposite party may be dismissed.

3. The complainant adduced documentary evidence marked as Ext. A1. The complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite parties produced no oral or documentary evidence.

4. We heard both sides and considered the contentions raised. The complainant on cross examination admitted that he had purchased the split Air conditioner from 1^st opposite party knowing that it is a 2^nd hand split Air
Conditioner. The case of the complainant is that even after the repairs effected on three occasions, the Air Conditioner is not functioning. Therefore the complainant seeks refund of the purchase cost of the split Air Conditioner of Rs. 24,000/-. There is no dispute for the 1^st opposite party that the complainant purchased 2^nd hand split Air Conditioner of the 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party and that the 1^st opposite party had attended to the complaints of the product registered by the complainant. Here even after repeated repairs the split Air Conditioner has not became functional. The above facts go to show that the 2^nd hand LG split Air Conditioner sold to the complainant is suffering from ingrained manufacturing defect. Therefore the 1^st opposite party is therefore liable to refund the cost of the 2^nd hand split Air Conditioner purchased by the complainant.

5. In the result, we direct that the 1^st opposite party shall refund the cost of split Air Conditioner sold through 2^nd opposite party to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, No other reliefs granted, Ordered accordingly.

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, failing which the amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of November 2013.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K.,Member.

Sd/- A Rajesh, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose,Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix                                                                               

            Complainant’s exhibits :

Ext. A1 : Copy of bill dt. 02/03/2012

          Opposite party’s exhibits: Nil

          Depositions

PW1 : Rakesh S. Rajan