DATE OF DISPOSAL: 11.12.2018.
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Smt. Ranjita Panigrahi has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she purchased one Refrigerator L.G. FF-GL-B-252VLGY on payment of Rs.19,000/- on dated 23.07.2014 from O.P.No.1. On purchase of the same the O.P.No.1 issued Invoice No. LG201415-274 dated 23.07.2014. Out of the total value of the Refrigerator in question, while rate comes to Rs.16,740/-, the tax has been collected @13.5% amounting to Rs.2259.91 paisa and totaling to Rs.19,000/-. The O.P.No.2 is the Manufacturer and the O.P.No.1 is the Local Distributor. On purchase of the aforesaid Refrigerator, the complainant was issued with warranty card for one year. On dated 07.01.2015, while the warranty period was in force, the Refrigerator so purchased on dated 23.07.2014, did not function and the complainant was forced to contact the O.P.No.1 for proper service. The Refrigerator did not function and there was no cooling. Inspite of repeated approach for replacement of the defective Refrigerator, the O.Ps did not take any steps either for proper removal of the defective or for replacement of the said defective Refrigerator. The Refrigerator was attended by Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. on 10.02.2015 and again on 15.02.2015 but it yielded no result and the product remained totally unused. Due to inaction of the O.Ps for removal of the defects or replacement of the defective refrigerator, the complainant issued legal notice through the advocate on dated 22.04.2015 to the O.P.No.1 with a copy to the O.P.No.2, calling upon to replace to a new one and pay compensation of Rs.1000/- per day. Inspite of the legal notice dated 22.4.2015, the O.Ps did not responded and the refrigerator is lying idle without any use. For the inactions of the O.Ps and deficiencies of services the complainant suffered from harassment causing mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps for either replacement of defective refrigerator with new one or to refund Rs.19,000/- towards the cost of the said refrigerator, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards the costs of the litigation in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P.No.1 neither preferred to appear nor filed any written version as such the O.P.No.1 set exparte on dated 18.10.2016.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the averments made in the complaint petition are not all true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of such of those allegations which are not specifically admitted herein. The averments made in Para 1 and 2 of complaint with regard to purchase of Refrigerator of LG make on 23.07.2014 for consideration and issuance of warranty card being submission based on documents, complainant may be put to establish the same by producing original sealed and signed invoice and warranty card. In Para 4 of the complaint with regard to status of O.Ps being materials on record, compliant may put established same. The averments of Para 5 with regard to issuance of warranty for one year on the refrigerator is admitted. However, complaint may be put to establish same by producing sealed and signed copy of warranty card. In Para 6 with regard to detection of defect on 07.01.2015 the complaint was forced to lodge complaint before O.P.No.1, being submission based on records, complaint may be put to establish same by producing cogent evidence. On receipt of complaint from Biswanath Panigrahi, it is attainted by the authorized service center “Global Electronics” on 15.02.2015 on alleged complaint of “less cooling” and same is rectified by replacing minor parts “Draier” and after gas charging. The refrigerator found to be working perfectly after putting minor efforts and being fully satisfied complaint put signature on it. The services and spares are provided free of cost in terms of warranty. Again on receipt of a complaint on 17.03.2016 from Biswanath Panigrahi, on allegation of less cooling, the set was repaired by replacing minor part namely “Timer” and “Control Assembly” and on observation it is satisfied by the technician that the refrigerator was performing perfectly and being fully satisfied complainant put his signature on the job card. This time as the warranty period is already over; service and spare parts are provided on chargeable basis. Complainant knowingly the terms and conditions of warranty, availed the service without protect. In Para 8 of complaint with regard to issuance of legal notice due to inaction of O.P. is disputed and denied in absence of any cogent evidence on record. It is submitted that no notice is served on answering O.P. and the averments is also not supported with any proof of delivery. The alleged demand for replacement of refrigerator and compensation of Rs.1000/-per day is simply baseless and beyond the agreed terms of warranty conditions and intended to tarnish reputation of O.Ps. Further allegation of not responding to legal notice and the alleged refrigerator is laying ideal without any use is baseless, in absence of any claim service in that period. In Para 10 with regard to inaction of O.P. and deficiency of services complainant suffered from harassment and mental agony is disputed and denied, in absence of any material on record and cogent evidence. It is established from the signed job cards that adequate services is rendered to full satisfaction of complainant and this is not a case of established defect in goods and deficiency in service. In Para 12 of the complaint with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, being submission basis on legal points, complainant may be put to establish same. It is submitted that the O.P.No.2 is not having any branch office or head office at Ganjam District. The prayer made in the complaint for replacement or refund of price along with compensation and cost, etc. are disputed and denied. It is submitted that cost and compensation cannot be claimed on assumptions only. As per limited and agreed terms of warranty, O.P. assures to repair the refrigerator free of cost within warranty period and on payment of charges after warranty period, hence claim for replacement is not maintainable under law as parties are bound by the terms and conditions agreed among them. Hence the O.P.No.2 prayed to dismiss the case.
5. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant and O.P.No.2 was present. We heard argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had purchased a Refrigerator from O.P.No.1 on dated 23.07.2014 by paying Rs.19,000/-, wherein the warranty period was one year. During warranty period i.e. on 07.01.2015 the said Refrigerator did not function as such the complainant contacted O.P.No.1 for necessary service. Further, it also reveals from the job card that the O.Ps ‘engineer had visited on 10.02.2015 for no cooling problem in the Refrigerator of the complainant and after repair the said Refrigerator has been received on 15.02.2015 with full satisfaction with the reports carried out and the same was working satisfactory. It is pertinent to mention here that though the complainant sent pleader notice to O.P.No.1 with copy to O.P.No.2 through her advocate stating therein that on 07.01.2015 the same fridge again not functioning and since then inspite of several approach to O.Ps. But it reveals that the pleader notice by the complainant have been sent to the O.Ps on 22.04.2015 though the said Refrigerator has been received with full satisfaction on 15.02.2015 vide job sheet No. RMA150209018745 dated 15.02.2015 from the O.P’s Service center. It reveals from the written version of O.P.No.2 that the alleged Refrigerator has been repaired after warranty period i.e. on 17.03.2016 for less cooling problem.
6. From the foregoing discussion it is clear evident that there was some cooling problem in the said Refrigerator as alleged by the complainant for which the complainant has intimated the O.Ps times without number for redressal of her grievance. Hence in our considered view the complainant is entitled to get some relief as prayed for.
7. As a result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed against O.P.No.2 on contest and on ex-parte against O.P.No.1. Both the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to repair the Refrigerator of the complainant in free of cost with fresh warranty of one year with complainant’s satisfaction or else refund the cost of the Refrigerator to the complainant within one month from the receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 14% interest per annum. In peculiar facts and circumstances there is no order as to cost and compensation.
The order is pronounced on this day of 11th December 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
