Delhi

North

CC/6/2020

SATISH CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI JASVIR SINGH RAGHBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

K.D. SHARMA

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

CC No.: 6/2020.

 Satish Chand

S/o Sh. Munshi Ram

H. No. 4424, Gali Saini Wali,

Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi,

Delhi-110007                                                                                                                 …                               Complainant

                                                          Vs

 

 Jasvir Singh Raghbir Singh,

M/s Saini Electronics,

49-D, Kamla Nagar

Opposite HDFC Bank, Roop Nagar,

Delhi-110007.                                                                                                                 …                         Opposite Party No.1

 

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

D-3, P3B, A-wing, 3^rd Floor,

Relegate Building, District Centre,

Saket, Delhi-110017.

 

Also at:

A-24/6, MCIE,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044.                                                                                                          …                        Opposite Party No.2

 

M/s. Bajaj FINSERV

Office at 1351, 13^th floor,

Aggarwal Metro Heights,

Plot E-5, Netaji Subhash Place,

Pitampura, Delhi-110034                                                                                                       …               Opposite Party No. 3

(Deleted from the array of the Parties vide order dated 17/12/2021)

 

ORDER

13/09/2023

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The details of facts, as alleged in the Complaint in hand, are that the Complainant purchased a LG Refrigerator Model No. GLT 502FPZU/2019, Gross Volume 471 Lt. Storage Vol. 431 Lt. vide Tax Invoice No. 69 dated 05.04.2019 on payment of Rs.55,800/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Only) from OP-1. It has been alleged that since the day of purchase of the LG Refrigerator, the Complainant has been facing various problems viz. low cooling, damage on one part of the inner side of the door of Fridge having coating, sweating, voice in compressor every time etc. as  the fridge is having various defects and containing old parts. The Complainant made various Complaints to LG customer care about the aforesaid defects and also about the defective parts with the request to change the fridge or remove the defects but neither the defects were rectified nor was fridge replaced. It is further alleged that the Fridge is not working from 20.05.2022. Therefore, the complaint has been filed for with the prayer for directions to OP to:-

1. get defects in goods removed and/or;
2. replace the goods with new goods and/or;
3. return the price/charges paid;
4. pay damages amounting Rs.50,000/- suffered due to the defects in goods for the reasons stated in the foregoing paras in the ends of justice.

 

2.       Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response to the Notice issued, the OP-2 has only filed its reply. The OP-1 did not put up appearance despite service and was treated ex-parte vide order 14/12/2022. Besides, the OP-3 was also deleted from the array of the party vide order dated 17/12/2021. The OP-2, in its reply, has stated that the Complainant registered first complaint on 14.06.2019 and the OP-2’s Executive, after thorough inspection, found no defect and feature of the product in question was explained to the Complainant properly. The Complainant made another complaint on 28.06.2019 and the Service Engineer visited the premises of the Complainant and after inspection no extra noise was found in the product. The OP-2 has alleged that the Complainant keeps on making complaints about the product on 10.07.2019 and 03.08.2019 mischievously with malafide motives. The notice sent by Complainant was duly replied vide reply dated 23.09.2019 whereby all the malafide and mischievous averments of the Complainant were denied. Copy of Job sheet dated 14.06.2019, 28.06.2019, 10.07.2019 and 03.08.2019 have also been attached with reply and exhibited in evidence. It is further contended by the OP-2 that Complainant is alleging manufacturing defects without furnishing any expert opinion in this regards which is mandatory in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission in catena of cases. It is stated by the OP-2  that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of C.N. Anantharam Vs. Fiat India Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 460 held that in case of allegation of manufacturing defect, independent technical expert opinion is necessary and in the matter of Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birendra Narayan Prasad and Ors. (2010 NCDRC 144), the Hon’ble National Commission held that in the case of allegation of inherent manufacturing defect, opinion of expert body is essential. In the present case, the Complainant failed to furnish any expert opinion, hence, the present case is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

3.       During the hearing on 08/08/2022, the OP-2 had filed an affidavit dated 04-08-2022 deposed by the technician working with OP-2, who happened to visit the premises of the complainant on 15/07/2022 and stated that the Complainant did not allow the technician to inspect the product in question stating that only replacement is acceptable. Some photographs taken by the OP-2 technician in the said premises, have also been filed by the OP-2. It is further stated  by the OP-2 that as per policy of company, only defect is being removed within limited warranty, however, the Complainant is seeking replacement without any defect of the product in question that cannot be fulfilled by the OP-2 in terms of limited warranty. An affidavit of the technician alongwith some photographs of fridge in question taken on 15-07-2022 and Job Sheet dated 15.07.2022 (which is not countersigned by the complainant) was also filed by the OP-2. However, on perusal, a discrepancy was noticed in the affidavit of the technician and the technician was directed to visit the premises of the Complainant again and file a proper report to this commission duly signed by the complainant on the next date of hearing.

4.       On 25/08/2022, the Ld. Advocate for OP2 stated that the complainant was contacted at the mobile no. given in the job sheet but the complainant refused to allow the visit of the technician but whereas it was denied by the complainant stating that he has not received any call about the visit and the said phone call was made by the technician probably to his son.

5.       However, the commission could not see any scope of refusal by the complainant for visit of mechanic to inspect the fridge as the date of the visit was already decided and communicated with the consent of both the parties during the hearing on 08/08/2022. Moreover, the statement of OP-2 was also denied by the complainant. Therefore, the commission directed the Technician of the OP 2 to visit the premises of the complainant on 27/08/2022 at 10:30am without making any call to the complainant and submit the report on or before next date of hearing. Thereafter, the Technician visited the complainant’s premises on 27-08-2022, as directed by this Commission and after the visit, the OP-2 has submitted report stating that the refrigerator in question was examined/inspected on 27-08-2022 and it was found that the product in question is not being used by the Complainant since long time, therefore, the said refrigerator was having no cooling. It is further stated that being an electronic item, particularly refrigerator need to be used continuously and if it is not used for long time, the compressor of the same may stop working. The OP-2 has also filed the job sheet dated 27.08.2022.

6.       Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OP-2 and it has been observed that:-

 a.      On 08/08/2022, the OP-2 had filed some photographs taken by the technician of OP-2 in the premises of the Complainant on 15-07-2022 and these photographs also prove that the fridge was lying empty in unused/non-working condition obviously being faulty.

b.       On 25/08/2022, the Ld. Advocate for OP2 stated that the complainant was contacted at the mobile no. given in the job sheet but the complainant refused to allow the visit of the technician whereas it was denied by the complainant stating that he has not received any call about the visit and the said phone call was made by the technician probably to his son. The commission could not see any scope of refusal by the complainant for visit of mechanic to inspect the fridge as the date of the visit was already decided and communicated with the consent of both the parties during the hearing on 08/08/2022. Therefore, commission decided to fix the date & time i.e.  27/08/2022 at 10:30am, for visit of Technician of the OP 2 company to the premises of the complainant to have a factual report about the status of fridge on or before next date of hearing.

On 14/09/2022, the OP2 has filed a job sheet in accordance with Commission’s order dated 25/08/2022 to inspect the refrigerator and the said job sheet indicated that the refrigerator in question was not cooling. With regard to this defect, the OP2 has argued that being an electronic item particularly refrigerator need to be used continuously and if it is not used for long time, the compressor of the same may be not working. This commission is not convinced with the defence taken by the OP 2 for non-cooling of the unit at the time of inspection. This also confirms the contention of the complainant that the refrigerator sold to him is not working since long.

c.       As per job sheets filed the OP-2 relating to complaints lodged by the Complainants,  the details of faults alongwith details of completion of  complaints  have been noticed as under:-

Request/complaint dates	Receipt dates/ time/ remarks	Job sheet dates	Completion dates and remarks
23.04.2019	26.04.2019/ 19:21/ installation	26.04.2019	Demo given
14.06.2019	14.06.2019/15:02/ no cooling	14.06.2019	17.06.2019/16:00 expl Set ok/ cabinet/ regular maintenance visit
28.06.2019/14:32	28.06.2019/ 14:47/ rust/ scratches/ dent/ completion	28.06.2019	02.07.2019/ 15:40/ abnormal noise/ regular maintenance visit/ explanation done.
11.07.2019/ 19:55	11.07.2019/ 09:15/ cabinet issue/ less cooling	11.07.2019	21.07.2019/ 12:00/ less cooling/ regular maintenance visit/ explanation done.
03.08.2019/ 14:24	03.08.2019/ 14:41/ missing part/ accessory	03.08.2019	31.08.2019/ 10:00/ cabinet/ regular maintenance/ parts replaced/ customer set working.

 

From the above details, it has been seen that the complaint of low cooling/ less cooling has started on 14.06.2019 and 11.07.2019 and on the day of inspection as ordered by this Commission i.e. on 27.08.2022, the same defect was reported. This clearly proves that the product was having the problem of cooling since inception and the Complainant has not been able to use it. As such, the  OP-2 cannot take shelter of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of C.N. Anantharam Vs. Fiat India Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 460 and in the matter of Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birendra Narayan Prasad and Ors. (2010 NCDRC 144) to escape from its duty to provide a functional refrigerator to the Complainant which he has purchased for his comfortable living but has not been able to use it being defective one. It is evident from the above details of complaints that the OP-2 started receiving complaints immediately after installation and has not made any serious efforts to provide satisfactory service to the consumer with the intention to get the warranty period expired. It is also seen from the above details of complaints that a complaint received on 11.07.2019 has been attended on 21.07.2019 and the last complaint lodged on 03.08.2019 has been attended on 31.08.2019 which reflects the attitude of OP-2 towards an upset/ unhappy consumer. Feeling aggrieved with such type of attitude of OP-2, the Complainant has also served legal notice dated 12.08.2019 but instead of providing satisfactory service to a consumer, the OP-2 has chosen to drag a consumer to the litigation.

d.       The copies of the job sheets filed by the OP-2 contain a pre-printed note of satisfaction from the customer side with the wording as “I am fully satisfied with the repairs carried out on my product and the same is working satisfactorily”.  We observe it as an unfair trade practice adopted by the OP-2 to compel the consumer to sign this report even if he is not satisfied with the service.

7.       In view of the observations made in para 6 (a to d) above, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2 who failed to provide a functional refrigerator to the consumer/complainant who has bought it for his comfortable living. As such, the complainant has suffered directly due to deficiency in service of the OP-2 in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. Besides, the non-functioning of the Refrigerator since inception has also caused mental agony and physical harassment to the Complainant. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct:-

I. OP-2 (LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.) to pay Rs.55,800/- (Rupees Fifty  Five Thousand Eight Hundred only) to the complainant within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 21-01-2020  till the date of the payment;

II. OP-2 (LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.) to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant for the mental  pain, agony and harassment;

III. OP-2 (LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.) to remove the pre-printed note of wording “I am fully satisfied with the repairs carried out on my product and the same is working satisfactorily” from the job sheets to be given to its technicians on receipt of complaints from consumers for carrying out repairs/ services of its products.

 

8.       It is clarified that in case, the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP-2 to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order, the OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on the aforesaid amount, from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

9.       The complainant shall handover the defective refrigerator to the OP-2 on receipt of the amount, as ordered above, from OP-2.

10.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                                     DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                                  Member                                                                                            President       

                                         DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                             DCDRC-1 (North)