Per :- Mrs. Bidnukar, Member Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer and the Opposite Party No.2 is the authorized dealer of the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2 are the ‘service providers’ under Section-2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [2] The Complainant had purchased a LG Microwave Oven Model No.MC-7645-BS on 3/1/2008 from Mansukh Distributors Pvt. Ltd., at Vile-Parle in Mumbai; vide Bill No.2647. It has one years warranty from the date of purchase. [3] It is the case of the Complainant that when the Complainant started using the microwave, on the very first day, the door of the microwave got burnt. So, she lodged a complaint with the Opposite Parties. The complaint number was 250120070. On this complaint, the Opposite Parties replaced the model after one month. [4] The Complainant states that after using this replaced model for few days, the door frame of the microwave again got burnt. So, the Complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.3040299. The representative of the Opposite Parties again attended the complaint and replaced the door frame. [5] The Complainant further states that after changing the door frame, after one month, again the door frame got burnt. On third time, she lodged a complaint bearing No.WHC70705265 with the Opposite Party No.1. Again the Opposite Party No.1 replaced the door frames. On this occasion, the Complainant lodged the complaint by registered post to the company and asked for permanent solution. But the Company neither replied nor gave any solution on the problems in the microwave. After lodging this complaint, again the same problem arose on 4/12/2008. The Complainant lodged a complaint with the local service provider of LG Electronics, name as ‘United Electronics’. The complaint number was W8-CC0402. The representative of United Electronics attended the complaint and took the photographs of microwave and gave assurance to repair the same. However, the Opposite Parties did not give any solution for the existing problem. [6] Hence, the Complainant has filed this present complaint and prayed for:- (i) replacement of the defective model; (ii) Compensation in sum of Rs.50,000/- for the inconvenience; (iii) Rs.50,000/- for mental agony in pursuing the complaints. [7] The complaint is filed with an affidavit and submitted supportive documents on the record. [8] As per notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed its written version on record, but the Opposite Party No.2 preferred to remain absent inspite of the notice. Hence, order to proceed the matter ex-parte against the Opposite Party No.2 is passed by this Forum. [9] The Opposite Party No.1 denies the allegations made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 also denies that the subject microwave has failed to function properly. It also denies that there was frequent burning of panel of microwave door due to any inherent defect in the said microwave. According to the Opposite Party No.1, first time model was replaced and for subsequent complaints, complaints were attended and the microwave was repaired. The respective job-sheets are attached with the written version. The Opposite Party No.1 further states that adequate demonstration was given to the Complainant for the use of microwave. However, the Complainant is unable to use the microwave properly. So, the Opposite Party No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs. [10] The Complainant has denied the contentions of the Opposite Party No.1 by filing rejoinder to the reply of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant states that the job-sheets attached with the written version are false, misleading and fabricated documents. None of the job-sheets bears the signature of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 has not produced the authenticated documents. [11] On perusing the complaint, written version of the Opposite Party No.1 and rejoinder filed by the Complainant to the reply of the Opposite Party No.1 and documents filed by both the parties, following points arose for our consideration:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties? | YES | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the replacement of the model? | No. However, the Complainant is entitled to get refund of price of the microwave. | 3. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to claim compensation? | YES. An amount in sum of Rs.10,000/-. | 4. | What order? | The complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [12] Admittedly, the Complainant has purchased the microwave model No.7645-BS on 3/1/2008 from Mansukh Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Vile-Parle. For that she paid an amount in sum of Rs.10,800/- and the purchase bill is attached at page No.(01) of the compilation. According to the Complainant, on the very first day of its use, the door of the microwave got burnt. On lodging a complaint with the Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 replaced the model as it was within the warranty period and gave demonstration for showing correct way of operation of microwave. This fact is not denied by the Complainant. But as per the Complainant, the problems/defects continued with new replaced piece of microwave. After use of new replaced microwave, within a month the same problem arose. The door frame had got burnt. On lodging a complaint, the Opposite Party No.1 replaced the door frame. Even after replacement of the door frame, within a month, the Complainant had to suffer with the same problem of getting it burned. On lodging a complaint with the Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 again replaced the door frame. According to the Complainant, after replacement of the door frame on second time, the same problem arose after three months. This time, the complaint was attended by the representative of the Opposite Party No.1. He took the photographs of the microwave but did not repair it as per the assurance given by him. [13] The Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed its written version on record. The Opposite Party No.1 is not denying the fact that the same problem arose with the microwave and first time the Opposite Party No.1 gave the replacement of model. Since, it was within the warranty period. Twice the door frame was replaced by the Opposite Party No.1. On third time, the Complainant had to suffer with the same problem. These eventual facts show that there must be manufacturing defect in the model. The contentions of the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant was not correctly operating the said oven cannot be considered because in its written version, in paragraph (05) thereof, the Opposite Party No.1 states that adequate demonstration for use of oven was given. The Opposite Party No.1 further states that the entire oven was replaced free of cost and fresh demonstration was given to the Complainant as to how to correctly operate the same. After giving demonstration for using the microwave twice, it cannot be believed that the Complainant was not correctly operating the same oven. [14] Moreover, the remarks on the job-sheets attached alongwith the written version by the Opposite Party No.1 create doubt because the remarks are typewritten. Even at home, typewriters are available. It cannot be typed on job-sheets. So it seems that the remarks are written later on and are afterthought. These job-sheets are also not signed by the Complainant. This means that the job-sheets are not the original ones. Those are the fabricated job-sheets. However, the Complainant has not denied the fact that the model was replaced. But after replacement of model, two times door frames were replaced. [15] Once the model was replaced by the Opposite Party No.1, but the problem continued with the microwave. So, in the circumstances, we feel that instead of again replacement of the model, it is better to award refund of price of the microwave. [16] The Complainant had to face repeatedly with the same problem in the microwave. So, she must have suffered mental agony. So, we are inclined to award Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs of proceeding. In these circumstances, we pass the following order:- ORDER 1. The Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.10,800/- to the Complainant and take back the over in question. 2. The Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation and costs of the proceeding. 3. The Opposite Parties shall comply with this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.500/- per month to the Complainant. 4. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | | 
