Complaint taken on file: 19.06.2017
Order delivered on: 30.09.2022
BEFORE THE HON´BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION, ARIYALUR
PRESENT:
Dr.V.Ramaraj M.L, P.hd: President
Mr.N.Balu B.A, B.L : Member - I
Mrs.V.Lavanya B.A., B.L : Member - II
Consumer Complaint (RBT) No. 94/2022
Friday, the thirtieth day of September, 2022
Mrs.Janeeta Thilakar, W/o.Arockia Thilakar
No.53, Arcot Road, Saligramam
Chennai - 600 093 ... Complainant
-Vs-
1. M/s.L.G.Electronics India Pvt Ltd,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
“A” wing, 3rd Floor, D-3, District Center Saket,
New Delhi – 110 017.
2. M/s.L.G.Electronics India Pvt Ltd,
L.G. Service Center, Rep. by its Manager,
58, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, 100 Feet Road,
Chennai – 600 026
3. G.R Aircons, Rep. by its Manager,
6, Flat No.15, 8th Street,
Jai Nagar, Arumbakkam,
Chennai - 600 106 ... Opposite Parties
Counsel for Complainant: M/s. V.T.Narendiran
Counsel for Opposite Parties: Mr. T.R.Kumaravel
On perusal of records in this case, we delivered the following
ORDER
Pronounced by Mr.N.Balu: Member-I
Adopted by Dr.V.Ramaraj, President and Mrs.V.Lavanya, Member-II
1. The Complainant has filed this case as against the Opposite Parties claiming the replacement of her defective Air Conditioner or to refund the cost of the same (Rs.29,600/-), to pay Rs.8,692/- paid towards Happy Living Plan, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to her because of the deficiency in the service of the opposite parties and the cost of this case.
The facts of complaint in brief:
2. The complainant purchased a 1.5.ton split Air Conditioner (model No: LSASARSM, ANLG) from the 2nd Opposite Party on 20.03.2013 for Rs.29,600/-. After the end of the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase, the complainant approached the 2nd Opposite Party and enquired about their periodical service for which the 2nd O.P advised her to enter into Happy Living Plan offered by the 1st Opposite Party which is some kind of Annual Maintenance Plan. She agreed to it and paid Rs.8,692/- (AMC) to 2nd Opposite Party on 17.03.2014 and availed the HLP which would be in force from 20.03.2014 to 19.03.2018 (Ex. A-1). The complainant was shocked to know that the 1st and 2nd opposite parties had engaged 3rd opposite party to do the services of their products. The complainant had purchased the HLP plan from the 2nd opposite party believing that the 1st and 2nd opposite parties would carry out the service jobs through their well-trained employees. They have changed their policy without the knowledge of the complainant. Problems started to occur one after the other within a short period of one year. The complainant has found that the employees of the 3rd opposite party were unprofessional and untrained persons who were incapable to carry out the service works.
3. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties did not honor their promise. They made the complainant to stand under the mercy of the 3rd opposite party for each and every repair work and service of their A.C. In July, 2015, the complainant booked a service with the 3rd Opposite Party. The service personnel from the 3rd opposite party took the entire A.C unit including the outdoor part to their place for the purpose of doing complete service. The complainant registered a complaint of this issue to the 1st opposite party and then the 2nd opposite party pacified the complainant and also assured that her A.C machine would be serviced well and would be returned soon. But to the shock and anguish of the complainant, the Air conditioner started to develop several problems like water leakage in the indoor unit, over noise both in indoor and outdoor units. Above all the A.C did not function properly and the cooling effect was not good. Within a period of 7 months thereon it started to blow hot air instead of cooling air.
4. The complainant as usual booked a complaint with the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and they in turn deputed the 3rd opposite party to do the service. The 3rd opposite party on 18.03.2016 again took the entire A.C machine to their work place to do the service and then brought the serviced A.C machine on 21.03.2016 and wantonly left it idle on the floor it without fixing it in its place. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties in spite of several complaints did not make any effort to fix or install the A.C machine till 25.03.2016. The complainant was forced to avail the service of a third party for installing the Air Conditioner at a cost of Rs.4,000/- and gas filling and for bolt. The complainant alleges that the 3rd opposite party personnel looted the bolt and nut of the Air Conditioner. The left the A.C machine on the floor and it remained idle for 5 days. In spite of several complaints to the 1st opposite party they remained negligent and lethargic. They used to send messages to the complaint saying that they had entrusted the service work to a company namely EBR Enterprises and it shows the 1st and 2nd opposite parties’ irresponsible and poor service.
5. The 2nd opposite party intentionally sold the defective product to the complainant and the 1st opposite party being the Head Office of the 2nd opposite party who offers the HLP plan is equally liable for the mistakes committed by its branch. The 3rd Opposite Party being the service provider engaged by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to do their services is also equally liable. All the 3 opposite parties are to bear the responsibility for the irresponsible, poor, inattentive and unprofessional services carried out by the 3rd opposite party. In fact, all the services were done by the 3rd opposite party on behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Hence all the 3 Opposite Parties are jointly liable to replace the defective product. The 2nd opposite party has dishonestly collected Rs.8692/- from the complainant on the pretest of HLP. Therefore, she caused a legal notice to all the opposite parties on 30.03.2016 calling upon them to rectify the faults. As the notice to the 3rd opposite party was returned, she sent a corrigendum to the 3rd opposite party’s correct address on 05.04. 2016.
6. In spite of receiving the notice the opposite parties least bothered to clear their fault. Hence the complainant purchased a brand new onida split A.C for a value of Rs.29,600/- on 08.04.2016. the complainant sent a second notice on 25.04.2016 to all the opposite parties calling upon them to compensate her for the mental agony caused to her and her family members because of the unprofessional, lethargic and poor services done by the 3rd opposite party. Even after that the opposite parties remained silent. Therefore the complainant seeks a refund of Rs.28,600/- (the value of the A.C machine), Rs.8692/- (the amount paid for HLP, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of this litigation.
The facts of written version of Opposite Parties 1 to 3:
7. The Opposite parties jointly say in their written version that the Complainant is factually wrong. The 1st opposite party company L.G Electronics is one of the leading electronic manufacturers and is popular all over the world. All the products of the 1st opposite party are pre checked and pass through strict quality control process and therefore there is absolutely no chance for such defective product.
8. The complainant has opted to enter into the Happy Living Plan of the 1st opposite party on 17.03.2014 after one year from the date of purchase of the product. HLP is like Annual Maintenance Plan which ensures free service and available free spare parts throughout the entire HLP period of 4 years from 20.03.2014 to 19.03.2018. At the time of entering into such HLP contract with 2nd opposite party on 17.03.2014, the complainant did not complain anything about the performance of the A.C machine but happily paid for the HLP plan.
9. the 3rd opposite party is the authorized service agent/service center for 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The complainant has used the product for 3 years. Around 16 times, service or repair works have been carried out to the product free of cost because of the HLP contract. They have also given the details of all the 16 services/repair works done by them through their service engineers of the 3rd opposite party from 13.03.2013 to 15.03.2016. The complainant has suppressed the services done by 3rd opposite party but has concocted a story as if the 3rd opposite party was lethargic, inattentive and unprofessional only to gain unlawfully from the opposite parties. In fact, the service personnel of 3rd opposite party are given good training and then only they are appointed.
10. The allegation of the complainant that the service persons from the 3rd opposite party on 21.03.2016 after servicing the A.C kept it on the floor idle without installing it and it remained there for 5 days was not true. In fact, when the service engineers visited her home, the complainant told them that as she had some work asked them to lay it down on the floor and to come again and fix it when she calls them. Accordingly, they kept it there and thereafter they contacted her many times for the purpose of fixing the A.C but the complainant asked them to come after 2 days. When the service engineer visited her home after 2 days, the complainant told them that she had already installed it. They deny the allegation that they looted the nut and bolt from the A.C.
11. HLP is some kind of Annual maintenance plan which is in place to rectify the problems and to change the available spare parts free of cost. The complainant has utilized the HLP. Whenever she complained of any repair, service engineers from the side of the 3rd Opposite Party visited her home and serviced the A.C machine. Nearly 16 times services or repair works have been carried out by the Opposite Parties free of cost. After using a product for 3 years, how can it be replaced with an entirely new product, it was not possible as per the terms and conditions laid down in the HLP contract document. The complainant is well aware of it but is concocting this story only to gain wrongfully from the Opposite Parties.
12. Points to be considered:
1). Whether the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in his service as alleged by the complainant? If yes, what is the relief the complainant is entitled to?
2). Whether compensation can be awarded to the complainant?
3). What are the other reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
Point No: 1
13. The Exhibit A-1 marked by the complainant is the bill for purchasing the HLP from the 2nd opposite party dated 17.03.2014. The Exhibit A-2 marked by the complainant is the purchase bill of Onida 1.5-ton A.C from Rathna Cools Pvt Ltd dated 08.04.2016. The complainant has stated that she purchased the L.G Air conditioner from 2nd Opposite party on 20.03.2013 but has not produced any receipt to prove the same. The complainant has not stated at any place in the complaint, in the proof affidavit or in written statement as to for how much she purchased the L.G Air conditioner from the 2nd Opposite Party. She has stated in paragraph No.14 of her complaint that she bought a Onida Air Conditioner on 08.04.2016. in paragraph 19 (a) of her complaint she asks the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.29,600/- saying that it is the value of the L.G Air Conditioner but has failed to prove with evidence that she bought L.G A.C machine from the opposite parties. The complainant has failed to prove her case that the Opposite Parties due to their deficiency caused mental agony with a negligent and lethargic attitude.
14. Ex. A-3 of the complainant is a service bill. It shows the name of the service provider as “Akil Coolers” but without any Registration number, TIN number or GST number details. It shows that Rs.2000/- paid for Gas filling, Rs.200/- for bolt and Rs.1800/- for service. It is dated 26.03.2016. But the complainant has stated the date as 18.03.2016 in the Typed set. There is no mention as to for which model Air Conditioner those services were done. Moreover Rs.1800/- as service charge seems to be very exorbitant. Above all the complainant has stated in his complaint and proof affidavit that she paid that 4000 rupees for installing the Air Conditioner but in this bill, there is no mention like “installation Charge”. Therefore, it is concluded that the complainant has not proved that she purchased this product from the 2nd opposite party. When purchase itself is not proved, the question of deficiency in service does not arise.
Point No: 2
15. The contention of the Opposite Parties that the complainant has concocted a story as if the product of the Opposite Parties was defective one that the services of the opposite parties were defective and is making effort to get unlawful gain from the Opposite Parties using this commission as a platform and that the complainant has used the A.C machine for 3 years and the 3rd Opposite Party has properly serviced it as and when requested by the complainant and have carried out the repair works. The complainant has not stated anywhere as to for how much she purchased the product and has not produced any receipt to prove her purchase. But she asks for refund of the money and compensation, etc. she has not proved the purchase of L.G Air Conditioner from the 2nd opposite party.
16. Thus Point No. 2 is answered as follows: Perusing the documents submitted by the complainant and the Opposite parties, it is finally concluded that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has not proved her case with necessary evidence. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have proved that there is no fault on their part and therefore they are relieved from this case. Hence, they cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
17. Point No.3:
The first and second points reveal that there is no fault on the side of the Opposite Parties. The complainant has not proved her case. The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in their business or in their service to the complainant. The complaint does not deserve any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
As result this Commission passes the following ORDER:
The complainant has failed to prove her case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. The parties have to bear their expenses.
This Order was dictated by me to the steno, today the thirtieth day of September, 2022, was taken notes in short-hand and then typed in computer and corrected by him and was pronounced by us in the open court today.
President
Member - I
Member –II
Exhibits marked by the Complainant:
S.No | Date | Details of Document | Remarks | |
| A-1 | 17.03.2014 | Receipt for payment of HLP plan | Xerox copy |
| A-2 | 08.04.2013 | Purchase Bill for Onida A.C from Rathna Cools Ltd | Xerox copy |
| A-3 | 26.03.2016 | Receipt for Gas Filling and Service | Xerox copy |
| A-4 | 30.03.2016 | Legal Notice sent to | Xerox copy |
| A-5 | 05.04.2016 | Corrigendum sent to 3rd opposite party | Xerox copy |
| A-6 | _ | Ack. Cards | Xerox copies |
| A-7 | 25.04.2016 | Legal Notice | Xerox Copy |
| | | | | | | | | |
Exhibit marked by the Opposite Party:
S.No | Date | Details of Document | Remarks | |
| B-1 | _ | Job Sheets | Xerox copies |
| | | | | | | | | |
Witness examined by the Complainant: Janeets THilakar (Complainant)
Witness examined by the Opposite Party: S.Gopalakrishnan
President
Member – I
Member -II
