BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 549/2016 Filed on 08/11/2016

ORDER DATED:  09/06/2022

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Complainant a orthopaedic doctor by profession had purchased one LG Refrigerator frost free 350 ltr 4SGL 368YVQ4 Silver UL Tima for an amount of Rs.27,500/- from the 1^st opposite party who is the authorized dealer.  The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer.  Complainant purchased it on 19/08/2012.  During the time of purchase itself the 1^st opposite party assured that, the said fridge is defect free and a replacement warranty was also given to complainant in case of any defect.  Believing the words of the 1^st opposite party complainant purchased the said fridge spending Rs.27,500/-.  When the said fridge was taken to home and installed the fridge was not functioning smoothly and a sound was heard while working.  There was severe cooling problem and it was duly informed to the 1^st opposite party.  But the 1^st opposite party pacified that it will be ok with in few period.  Believing the words complainant was continuously using the Refrigerator but the problem of low cooling persisted.  The problem of cooling aggravated and it was duly informed to the 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party advised the complainant to take the Refrigerator to the authorised service centre.  Believing the words of the 1^st opposite party complainant informed the 3^rd opposite party and 3^rd opposite party send one technician to the complainant’s house.  He checked the Fridge but the problem persisted.  On 2 or 3 occasion the technician approached and tried to rectify the defects but all in vain.  On 19/09/2016 a loud noise and smoke emitted from the said fridge.  When it was informed the 3^rd opposite party he directed the complaint to entrust the fridge with the 3^rd opposite party for rectifying the defects.  Complainant entrusted the Refrigerator with the 3^rd opposite party on 22/09/2016.  The said refrigerator is having 4+1 year warranty and the said problem of the refrigerator was happened with in the warranty period.  On several occasion complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party for rectifying the defects happened in the said Refrigerator.  Even though the refrigerator was entrusted with the 3^rd opposite party on 22/09/2016 no steps was taken to redress the complainant’s grievance.  Complainant on several occasions informed the opposite parties to rectify the defect or to replace it with a new one.  But the opposite parties were reluctant to hear the grievance of complainant.  All are happened are within the warranty period.  The complainant bonafidely believe that the refrigerator was having severe manufacturing defects and it became completely functionless.  The fridge is under the custody of the 3^rd opposite party.  Complainant is in dare need of a fridge as his father is diabetic person.  The medicines for complainants father is to       be refrigerated and since the fridge become functionless, it is difficult for the complainant to keep life saving medicines of complainant’s father in refrigerator.  The act of the opposite parties 1 to 3 amounts to unfair trade practice & deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

Opposite parties 1 &2 entered appearance & filed version. Even though 3^rd opposite party received notice, 3^rd opposite party did not turn up, and hence 3^rd opposite party was set ex-parte.

1^st opposite party has admitted in their version that the complainant has purchased a LG refrigerator on 19/08/2012 from their shop.  The LG company has given 1 year warranty for the product & 5 year warranty for the compressor from the date of purchase.  1^st opposite party is only a merchant & they are not responsible for any service or repairing the damages.  1^st opposite party has further averred that 2^nd opposite party is responsible for resolving all the grievances that may arise after the sale of the refrigerator and not the 1^st opposite party, hence this version may be accepted.

2^nd opposite party has averred that the complainant had purchased the LG Refrigerator on 19/08/2012 from the 1^st opposite party.  The refrigerator was provided with one year warranty and 4 years additional warranty for compressor alone.  The averment that from the time of installation the refrigerator was not functioning smoothly and sound was heard while working and there was severe cooling problem etc are all false.  The first time a complaint was registered is after 4years of purchase that is on 21/09/2016.  It is true that a cooling problem was reported on 21/09/2016 which was duly attended by the 2^nd opposite party.  It was found that the PCB of the refrigerator became defective and unfortunately the PCB is not available due to change of model.  The averment that the refrigerator is having 4 plus 1 year warranty and the problem of the refrigerator happened within the warranty period is not correct.  The complaint occurred after 4 years of purchase.  Therefore the complainant is entitled for 15% of the purchase bill amount.  But as a special case 2^nd opposite party is offering to pay Rs.9,625/- which is 35% of the purchase price.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party, hence complaint may be dismissed.

  Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 to 3?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1.  The complainant has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3.  PW1 was cross examined by 2^nd opposite party.  1^st opposite party did not turn up for cross examining the complainant.  Even though 2^nd opposite party filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence before this commission.  It is admitted by 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties that the complainant has purchased a LG refrigerator on 19/8/2012 from the 1^st opposite party.  It is also evident from Ext.P1 that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator from 1^st opposite party on 19/8/2012.  It is also admitted by 2^nd opposite party that the PCB of the refrigerator has became defective & the PCB is not available due to the change of the model.  But it is the obligation of the manufacturing company to provide service relating to repairs which are deemed to include the supply of spare parts and consumable parts to render the product back into proper working condition.  In this modern era, it has become a common practice for the manufacturing companies to lure the gullible consumers through advertisements to purchase their products and thereafter fleece them of their hard earned money by denying their liability to provide spare parts and consumable parts to its consumers essential for the working of the product during the average length of life.  This is a perfect case which affects the consumer community at large irrespective of the product used by them if the manufacturers of the products after sale deny their liability to provide the spare parts and consumable parts, they force the consumer to abandon the products which are otherwise in proper working condition.  This amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturers to escalate their sales and profit figures by thrusting the consumers to abandon the product and purchase a new one in its place. 

1^st & 3^rd opposite parties being the authorized dealer & service centre of 1^st opposite party respectively is also liable for the act done by the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence, opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally responsible for a product sold to a consumer.

2^nd opposite party has offered Rs.9,625/- which is 35% of the purchase price on account of depreciation of the refrigerator is unjustified because due to the failure on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 to provide necessary spare parts at cost to the complainant after 4 years of its purchase has compelled him to abandon the refrigerator due to want of spare part is otherwise in proper working condition & thus has cut short the average length of life of the refrigerator. Hence we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to offer 50% of purchase price instead of 35%.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.13,750/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and fifty only)  being the 50% of Rs 27,500/-,(Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) i.e. the invoice price of the refrigerator & pay Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 9^th  day of June 2022.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

R         

C.C. No. 549/2016

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R