DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.302/19
Govinder Singh
L-30AB S/F, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi. .…Complainant
VERSUS
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
51, Udyog VIhar, Udyog Vihar Extension
Ecotech-II
Udyog VIhar, Great Noida
Uttar Pradesh-201306. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Present: None for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:31.10.2019
Date of Order :25.07.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking praying for Rs.70,000/- as compensation and Rs.23,000/- as cost of the unit and litigation expenses. OP-1 is RPG Electrade Pvt. Ltd. and OP-2 is LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
- Complainant purchased a one ton LG Air conditioner from OP-1 on 17.08.2014 for the sum of Rs.23,000/- which was to be installed in a room of 100 Sq. Ft. The purpose of purchasing was one ton AC was sufficient for the room and will reduce running cost in the peak summer season during the old age of the complainant.
- It is the stated by the complainant that in May 2019 the AC started tripping and the complaint was lodged with OP-2 on 31.05.2019. An employee of OP-2 came and cleaned condenser charging Rs.472/-. Though the complainant advised him to check the capacitor but OP refused to check claiming it to be non-faulty as per his experience. It is stated that on the same evening AC had the same problem of tripping. Another complaint was lodged and this time another technician came who said the capacitor was faulty but did not have a replacement.
- It is stated that the replacement took another week and that too after call was made to the OP to every day. The capacitor was replaced with a charge of Rs.981/- however, the problem continued the technicians made numerous visits and diagnosed the compressor to the faulty as it was over heating. Job sheet is annexed as annexure -4.
- It is stated by the complainant that the compressor of the AC had a warranty of five years therefore was shifted to the workshop of OP-2 and the complainant was charged Rs.590/- for transportation. After one week the AC was installed but it was making loud noise and not cooling however, the technician was not ready to listen.
- It is stated by the complainant that he wrote various mails to the service centre, CEO and other dignitaries thereafter another person visited and rectified the noise but cooling did not improve to the required level.
- It is further stated by the complainant that in response to various mails which are attached a 7(a) to 7(i). Thereafter the technical experts from OP-2 started experimenting on the AC of the complainant. The Unit was shifted to the service centre twice but did not yield any result.
- The complainant further states that the technicians were experimenting by mixing two gases in the unit which were harmful to the compressor. It was informed to the complainant on 01.07.2019 that the unit will the replaced within two to three days as it could not be repaired to the required level as per the report submitted by the technical team.
- It is the case of the complainant that due to the negligent and unprofessional acts of the OP-2, complainant has suffered loss and injury on account of deprivation, harassment, mental agony caused over three years.
- In their reply, OP-2 has held that complainant has enjoyed the AC for four years nine months and once he complained service were offered however despite best efforts of the OP-2 it could not be rectified. The complainant then offered adjustment of the depreciated value of the AC however the complainant was not ready. As the unit was more than four years old and the complainant did not agree for the depreciated amount he was offered to have the AC replaced with the seconds unit with minor scratch and dent however, that offer was also rejected. It is stated that complainant has neither agreed for replacement of AC with depreciated value nor replacement of AC by another unit of 1.5 ton without any payment. Copy of the job sheets are annexed as annexure R/1 (colly).
- It is stated that the complaint has been made with ulterior made by submissions which are false and frivolous. In this regard OP-2 has placed reliance on the judgment passed in K. Jayaraman Vs. The Poona Hospital & Research Centre, 1994 (I) CPR 23. It is denied by the OP-2 that the house of the complainant was converted into experiment workshop or that the gas used in the unit was harmful.
- In his rejoinder, complainant has submitted that the mere fact that the problem in the AC could not be rectified after changing all major parts is indicative of the fact that the AC was being experimented with. It is stated by the complainant that even after changing all major parts AC could not perform as per standard norms which proves that the faulty machine was sold to the complainant. In this regard, complainant has placed reliance on whatsapp conversation with Mr. Manish Gupta and which is annexed a annexure (ac).
- Both the complainant and OP-2 have filed evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. It is seen from annexures placed on record that the AC of the complainant was troubling him within five years of the warranty provided on compressor. It is seen that complainant was also offered a 1.5 ton AC as replacement but the complainant had declined by giving 4-5 reasons which included increase of noise level, monthly power bills etc. It is seen from the material on record that OP-2 has also put in efforts to rectify the AC purchased by the complainant therefore it cannot be inferred that the AC was having a manufacturing defect as it was worked well for more than four years. It also cannot be said that OP-2 was deficient in services as they did provide services to the complainant. However, the issue remains that the compressor of the one ton AC of the complainant stopped working in the period of warranty.
Since OP 2 had given a warranty of 5 years on compressor of the AC purchased by the complainant and it did not work for that entire time of warranty, it amounts to unfair trade practice. Therefore, this Commission directs the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- within three months from the date of pronouncement of the order failing which OP 2 shall be liable to pay interest @5% p.a from the date of institution i.e. 31.10.2019 of the suit till realization.
Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
