BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.614 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          14.10.2014

                                                Date of Decision:           10.04.2015

Satpal Singh Kataria, #46 Janta Nagar, Chandigarh Road, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.

                                                                        ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Saini Electronics, Main Bazar, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab through Shri Bhag Singh Saini, Proprietor.

2.     L.G. Electronics India Private Limited, Plot No.194-195, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh through its Customer Service Head/Branch Head/Authorised signatory.

3.     L.G. Electronics Limited, Plot No.51, Surajpur, Khasna Road, Greater Noida (U.P.) through its Customer Service Head/Branch Head/Authorised signatory.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

Shri Chand Deep Jindal, counsel for the OPs.

(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)

ORDER

                The case of the complainants is that on 21.11.2012 he purchased L.G. Refrigerator from the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) No.1 for Rs.18,200/- vide invoice Ex.C-1 with one year warranty. The warranty for the compressor was five years from the date of purchase. After few months of purchase the refrigerator started giving trouble non cooling due to which the food articles kept in the refrigerator started getting spoiling.  The complainant approached OP No.1 who refused to entertain his request and directed him to report OP No.2 and 3. The complainant brought the problem of non cooling to the notice of OP No.2 upon which the service engineer visited the complainant who rectified the problem temporarily. After some days the refrigerator again started giving the same problem and on the complaint of the complainant the service engineer visited second time and again the problem was temporarily rectified.  However, in May 2013 the refrigerator again stopped cooling and on the complaint of the complainant the service engineer tried to rectify the defect but could not succeed. The engineer assured the complainant visit to visit again on the next day but none visited the premises of the complainant thereafter. The complainant requested OP No.1 to replace the defective refrigerator as it was suffering from manufacturing defect to which OP No.1 flatly refused.  The complainant sent E-mail dated 13.07.2013 Ex.C-2 to OP No.2 in this regard.  OP No.2 vide e-mail dated 13.07.2013 Ex.C-3 apologized for inconvenience to the complainant. The complainant even requested Om Pandiya Branch Head of the OPs at Chandigarh to redress his grievance but to no avail. The complainant sent letter dated 19.07.2013 Ex.C-4 through registered post narrating the entire episode but no reply was received.  The complainant even sent reminders dated 19.08.2013, 12.09.2013, 24.06.2014 but to no avail.  As the refrigerator was in non operation condition for the last more than one year, the complainant had to purchase a new refrigerator causing him unnecessary financial burden.

                With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to refund him Rs.18,200/- i.e. the cost of the Refrigerator; to pay him compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental  and physical harassment and Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.             The OPs in the written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant never made any complaint to them regarding mal functioning of the refrigerator.  The e-mail received from the complainant was immediately replied by OP No.3 and the complainant was asked to inform the number of the complaint which he did not provide. However, the engineer was sent by the OPs to repair the refrigerator but the complainant refused to get repaired the same and demanded replacement or refund of the price of the refrigerator.  The warranty of the refrigerator had expired on 20.11.2013.  The complainant has not produced any expert evidence regarding the manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. On merits, it is pleaded that when any customer complained for any product to the OPs, the OPs issue a complaint number but the complainant has not mentioned any complaint number in his complaint. He has made a false story just to get benefit.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-9.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Naresh Kumar, Branch Service Manager Ex.OP-1/1; affidavit of Umesh Kumar Engineer Ex.OP-1/2 and copy of job sheet dated 15.07.2013 Ex.OP-1.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the written arguments filed by them. 

6.             The issue involved in the present complaint is regarding the defective refrigerator which the complainant has purchased against invoice dated 21.11.2012 Ex.C-1 by paying an amount of Rs.18,200/-. From the initial stage of installation, the complainant noticed the defect of non cooling and brought the same to the notice of the OPs and the problem was initially rectified by the Ops but the same problem reoccurred in the month of May, 2013.  The refrigerator was under warranty. Complainant brought the same fact to the knowledge of the OPs despite rigorous follow up the OPs have failed to redress his grievance and as on date the defect has not been removed and rectified. Therefore, the defective refrigerator has not only deprived the complainant of its proper and effective use but has also caused him mental and financial agony.

7.             The OPs have admitted having received the complaints from the complainant and also addressed the complaint regarding the malfunctioning of the refrigerator as is evident from Ex.OP-1 when the engineer of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant.

8.             Perusal of Ex.OP-1 shows that the refrigerator was purchased on 21.11.2012. The OPs have admitted the reported defect of cooling problem in the job card Ex.OP-1 but no repairs have been effected by them because as per the OPs the customer has refused to get the repairs done.  We have perused the record and there is no refusal note of the complainant on the said job sheet Ex.OP-1. Therefore, no reliance can be made on Ex.OP-1 regarding the stand taken by the OPs. Another plea that the refrigerator was under warranty and the warranty had expired on 20.11.2013 is again of no help to the OPs as the complainant has first reported as admittedly accepted by the OPs on 15.07.2013. Thus from the date of purchase i.e. 21.11.2012 to the first reported defect on 15.07.2013 falls within one year of the warranty and the Ops were under obligation to provide free of cost after sale service. In the present complaint the OPs have failed to do so.

9.             On the other hand the complainant has sent number of registered letters to the Customer Care Head of the OPs for taking action against the defaulting officials of the OPs as well as rectifying/repairing the refrigerator in question as is evident from Ex. C-8 i.e. reminder dated 24.06.2014 of the earlier letters Ex.C-4 to 7. The OPs have not produced anything on record to show that how they have dealt with the complaints of the complainants as depicted in Ex.C-3 to C-8.

10.           Thus non redressal of grievance of the complainant by the customer care centre of the OPs per se is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and in no manner can be considered as consumer friendly behaviour of the OPs.

11.           Since the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant within the warranty period as no steps were taken to rectify the defects i.e. the problem of cooling, in order to meet out the requirement the complainant had to shell out another amount of Rs.24,745/- on purchase of another refrigerator as per invoice Ex.C-9. The said purchase of second refrigerator is again due to the acts of omissions of the OPs and therefore, putting the complainant to financial hardship on account of purchase of second refrigerator and it is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

12.           Since the complainant is now having another refrigerator it will be appropriate under the circumstances to allow the complaint and complainant in that eventuality deserves to get the refund of total amount of Rs.18,200/- alongwith interest and compensation.

13.           Hence the complaint is hereby allowed with the direction to the OPs to:

(a)    refund to the complainant Rs.18,200/- (Rs. Eighteen thousand two hundred only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 21.11.2012 till actual payment after taking back the defective refrigerator from the complainant.

(b)    to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/-           (Rs. Fifteen  thousand only) to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

April 10, 2015.

                                                                  (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (A.B. Aggarwal)

Member

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.614 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          14.10.2014

                                                Date of Decision:           10.04.2015

Satpal Singh Kataria, #46 Janta Nagar, Chandigarh Road, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.

                                                                        ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Saini Electronics, Main Bazar, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab through Shri Bhag Singh Saini, Proprietor.

2.     L.G. Electronics India Private Limited, Plot No.194-195, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh through its Customer Service Head/Branch Head/Authorised signatory.

3.     L.G. Electronics Limited, Plot No.51, Surajpur, Khasna Road, Greater Noida (U.P.) through its Customer Service Head/Branch Head/Authorised signatory.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

Shri Chand Deep Jindal, counsel for the OPs.

(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)

ORDER

                The case of the complainants is that on 21.11.2012 he purchased L.G. Refrigerator from the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) No.1 for Rs.18,200/- vide invoice Ex.C-1 with one year warranty. The warranty for the compressor was five years from the date of purchase. After few months of purchase the refrigerator started giving trouble non cooling due to which the food articles kept in the refrigerator started getting spoiling.  The complainant approached OP No.1 who refused to entertain his request and directed him to report OP No.2 and 3. The complainant brought the problem of non cooling to the notice of OP No.2 upon which the service engineer visited the complainant who rectified the problem temporarily. After some days the refrigerator again started giving the same problem and on the complaint of the complainant the service engineer visited second time and again the problem was temporarily rectified.  However, in May 2013 the refrigerator again stopped cooling and on the complaint of the complainant the service engineer tried to rectify the defect but could not succeed. The engineer assured the complainant visit to visit again on the next day but none visited the premises of the complainant thereafter. The complainant requested OP No.1 to replace the defective refrigerator as it was suffering from manufacturing defect to which OP No.1 flatly refused.  The complainant sent E-mail dated 13.07.2013 Ex.C-2 to OP No.2 in this regard.  OP No.2 vide e-mail dated 13.07.2013 Ex.C-3 apologized for inconvenience to the complainant. The complainant even requested Om Pandiya Branch Head of the OPs at Chandigarh to redress his grievance but to no avail. The complainant sent letter dated 19.07.2013 Ex.C-4 through registered post narrating the entire episode but no reply was received.  The complainant even sent reminders dated 19.08.2013, 12.09.2013, 24.06.2014 but to no avail.  As the refrigerator was in non operation condition for the last more than one year, the complainant had to purchase a new refrigerator causing him unnecessary financial burden.

                With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to refund him Rs.18,200/- i.e. the cost of the Refrigerator; to pay him compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental  and physical harassment and Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.             The OPs in the written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant never made any complaint to them regarding mal functioning of the refrigerator.  The e-mail received from the complainant was immediately replied by OP No.3 and the complainant was asked to inform the number of the complaint which he did not provide. However, the engineer was sent by the OPs to repair the refrigerator but the complainant refused to get repaired the same and demanded replacement or refund of the price of the refrigerator.  The warranty of the refrigerator had expired on 20.11.2013.  The complainant has not produced any expert evidence regarding the manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. On merits, it is pleaded that when any customer complained for any product to the OPs, the OPs issue a complaint number but the complainant has not mentioned any complaint number in his complaint. He has made a false story just to get benefit.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-9.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Naresh Kumar, Branch Service Manager Ex.OP-1/1; affidavit of Umesh Kumar Engineer Ex.OP-1/2 and copy of job sheet dated 15.07.2013 Ex.OP-1.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the written arguments filed by them. 

6.             The issue involved in the present complaint is regarding the defective refrigerator which the complainant has purchased against invoice dated 21.11.2012 Ex.C-1 by paying an amount of Rs.18,200/-. From the initial stage of installation, the complainant noticed the defect of non cooling and brought the same to the notice of the OPs and the problem was initially rectified by the Ops but the same problem reoccurred in the month of May, 2013.  The refrigerator was under warranty. Complainant brought the same fact to the knowledge of the OPs despite rigorous follow up the OPs have failed to redress his grievance and as on date the defect has not been removed and rectified. Therefore, the defective refrigerator has not only deprived the complainant of its proper and effective use but has also caused him mental and financial agony.

7.             The OPs have admitted having received the complaints from the complainant and also addressed the complaint regarding the malfunctioning of the refrigerator as is evident from Ex.OP-1 when the engineer of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant.

8.             Perusal of Ex.OP-1 shows that the refrigerator was purchased on 21.11.2012. The OPs have admitted the reported defect of cooling problem in the job card Ex.OP-1 but no repairs have been effected by them because as per the OPs the customer has refused to get the repairs done.  We have perused the record and there is no refusal note of the complainant on the said job sheet Ex.OP-1. Therefore, no reliance can be made on Ex.OP-1 regarding the stand taken by the OPs. Another plea that the refrigerator was under warranty and the warranty had expired on 20.11.2013 is again of no help to the OPs as the complainant has first reported as admittedly accepted by the OPs on 15.07.2013. Thus from the date of purchase i.e. 21.11.2012 to the first reported defect on 15.07.2013 falls within one year of the warranty and the Ops were under obligation to provide free of cost after sale service. In the present complaint the OPs have failed to do so.

9.             On the other hand the complainant has sent number of registered letters to the Customer Care Head of the OPs for taking action against the defaulting officials of the OPs as well as rectifying/repairing the refrigerator in question as is evident from Ex. C-8 i.e. reminder dated 24.06.2014 of the earlier letters Ex.C-4 to 7. The OPs have not produced anything on record to show that how they have dealt with the complaints of the complainants as depicted in Ex.C-3 to C-8.

10.           Thus non redressal of grievance of the complainant by the customer care centre of the OPs per se is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and in no manner can be considered as consumer friendly behaviour of the OPs.

11.           Since the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant within the warranty period as no steps were taken to rectify the defects i.e. the problem of cooling, in order to meet out the requirement the complainant had to shell out another amount of Rs.24,745/- on purchase of another refrigerator as per invoice Ex.C-9. The said purchase of second refrigerator is again due to the acts of omissions of the OPs and therefore, putting the complainant to financial hardship on account of purchase of second refrigerator and it is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

12.           Since the complainant is now having another refrigerator it will be appropriate under the circumstances to allow the complaint and complainant in that eventuality deserves to get the refund of total amount of Rs.18,200/- alongwith interest and compensation.

13.           Hence the complaint is hereby allowed with the direction to the OPs to:

(a)    refund to the complainant Rs.18,200/- (Rs. Eighteen thousand two hundred only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 21.11.2012 till actual payment after taking back the defective refrigerator from the complainant.

(b)    to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/-           (Rs. Fifteen  thousand only) to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

April 10, 2015.

                                                                  (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (A.B. Aggarwal)

Member