| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.130 of 22-04-2015 Decided on 03-03-2016 Surinder Pal Bansal S/o Amar Nath S/o Baru Ram R/o # 4982, Gali Affim Wali, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A-Wing, 3rd Floor, D-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017. 2.M/s LG Shopee, M/s Om International LG Shopee LG Lifestyle Shoppe, 2032, The Mall, Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Jai Gopal Goyal, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Rohit Sharma, Advocate. ORDER M. P. Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Surinder Pal Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one LG refrigerator for Rs.33,000/- vide bill No.4910 dated 26.1.2015 from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1 with warranty and guarantee. It is alleged that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the abovesaid refrigerator as goods contained in it like milk, atta for roties etc. became non-consumable as it is not having proper cooling. This fact could not come to the knowledge of the complainant from the date of purchase upto first week of March 2015 due to winter season, but this fact came to his knowledge in the second week of March 2015 when goods contained in the refrigerator became non-consumable. He number of times visited opposite party No.2 with the complaint regarding cooling and its effects, but opposite party No.2 always put off the matter on one or other pretext stating that it is not responsibility of opposite party No.2. It did not issue and supply the warranty/guarantee card alongwith invoice. Opposite party No.2 concealed the fact of inherent manufacturing defect of refrigerator to avoid its consequences. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged complaint on toll free No.18001801999 on 28.3.2015. Local staff of opposite parties visited to his house and after checking, they stated that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the refrigerator, due to this the gas has been leaked and they put gas in it to maintain the level of its cooling. He requested opposite parties that if there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator then replaced it with new one, but to no effect. He also sent a legal notice dated 30.3.2015 to opposite parties, but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has claimed damages to the tune of Rs.1 lac and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation and Rs.33,000/- as cost of refrigerator. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version. In written version, they have raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. There is no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. The complainant has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of 'Act'. He has not approached before this Forum with clean hands and has distorted and twisted the true facts before this Forum with a malafide intention to draw undue benefit. He is well aware of the fact that the refrigerator had been delivered to him in proper working conditions and alleged defect in it occurred due to its mishandling on the part of complainant while taking it to the house by him and there is no manufacturing defect in it. He is estopped from filing this complaint by his act and conduct. It is further revealed that the complainant made complaint about the refrigerator in question on 29.3.2015. On receipt of complaint from the complainant, opposite parties sent Karnail Singh, Service Engineer to his house for checking the refrigerator on 30.3.2015. On checking, it was found that there is leakage of gas from the refrigerator, which is only due to its mishandling. Service engineer was willing to repair the refrigerator but the complainant did not allow for same. The job card was also prepared in this regard. It is further pleaded that opposite parties were always ready and are ready to fill the gas in the refrigerator free of cost i.e. without any charges as a goodwill gesture. It is further pleaded that in the guise of this complaint, the complainant wants a new refrigerator for which he is not entitled to as there is no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question. The complicated questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint, which require elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence, which can only be possible in the Civil Court. As such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint. This complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of complainant and is liable to be dismissed with special cost. On merits, opposite parties admitted that the complainant purchased one refrigerator vide bill dated 26.1.2015 from opposite party No.2. It is also admitted that opposite party No.1 has given warranty on the refrigerator as per warranty conditions mentioned in the warranty card. It is denied that any guarantee was ever given to the complainant by opposite parties. After controverting all other material averments, opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Both the parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 17.7.2015, (Ex.C1); affidavit of Yogesh Sharma dated 19.8.2015, (Ex.C2); Reply to legal notice, (Ex.C3); Envelope, (Ex.C4); photographs, (Ex.C5 and Ex.C6); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C7) and photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C8). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Varinder Kumar dated 2.12.2015, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopies of job sheets, (Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4) and submitted written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments submitted by learned counsel of opposite parties as well as record. It is reiterated by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased one refrigerator from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1 on 26.1.2015. It is also not disputed that he lodged complaint with opposite parties. The averment of the complainant is that there is manufacturing defect in the refrigerator, but averment of opposite parties is that there is gas leakage in it due to its mishandling by complainant. He has got examined the refrigerator from private mechanic Yogesh Sharma. His affidavit is brought on record as Ex.C2 wherein he has categorically mentioned that there is manufacturing defect. He has also deposed that gas pipes are intact and there is no dent found in the pipes. Therefore, this fact also proves that there was no mishandling of refrigerator by the complainant. Opposite parties have mainly relied upon job sheets, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3). These job sheets are allegedly signed by Karnail Singh and Maninder Singh. They are neither examined nor their affidavits are brought on record. Moreover these job sheets are not signed by the complainant or his representative. Therefore, these job sheets do not not support his case. Thus, complaint be accepted and claimed relief be granted. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any benefits of his own default. He has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Admittedly, complaint was lodged in the last week of April 2015. Opposite parties have brought on record job sheets, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3), which prove that their mechanic visited the complainant on 30.3.2015 and 9.5.2015, but complainant did not allow the mechanic to repair the refrigerator. In written version, opposite parties have clearly offered that they were always ready and still ready to fill the gas in the refrigerator free of cost as goodwill gesture. Therefore, keeping in view the stand of opposite parties, no deficiency in service is attributed to them. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Undisputed facts are that the complainant has purchased one refrigerator from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1. He has alleged that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the refrigerator but there is no expert report to prove this fact. He has relied upon affidavit of Yogesh Sharma but he has simply mentioned in his affidavit that there is inherent defect but he has not disclosed the defect. Therefore, from the affidavit of Yogesh Sharma, it cannot be concluded that the complainant has been able to prove any inherent manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. It is not disputed that complainant lodged complaint in the last week of April 2015, but as per complainant, opposite parties used to put off the matter. Of-course, he has alleged that local staff of opposite parties visited his house and disclosed that there is manufacturing defect in the refrigerator, but he has not brought on record any job sheet to prove that representative of opposite parties admitted any inherent defect in the refrigerator. Opposite parties have brought on record job sheets, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3) to show that the complainant refused to get his refrigerator repaired. Of-course, these job sheets are not signed by the complainant or his representative and opposite parties have also not produced affidavit of mechanic who prepared these reports. The complainant has admitted that opposite parties sent the local representative. In their written version, they have also pleaded that they were always ready and still ready to fill the gas in the refrigerator in question. Keeping in view the evidence on record and offer made by opposite parties, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. They are directed to repair the refrigerator in question as per terms of warranty card. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Pronounced in open Forum:- 03-03-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
