DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 191  of  2021

 

1. Smt. Nisha Paul,

W/O- Sri Biman Kanti Roy,

 

2. Sri Biman Kanti Roy

S/O- Late Birendra Lal Roy,

 

Both are residents of :

Ram Nagar, Road No. 4, 

Near Sporting Club,

Pin- 799002,

Agartala, West Tripura. ...........Complainants.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Executive Service Authorise Centre 

 

2.Giriraj Furniture,

Sankar Chowmuhani, 

Krishnanagar, Agartala,

West Tripura- 799001. .........Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________ 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAUL,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the O.P. No.1     :  Sri Sushanta Sekhar Datta,

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Exparte.

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. This case is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Nisha Paul (here-in-after called  the “Complainant No.1”) and Bimal Kanti Roy(here-in-after called the “Complainant No.2”) of Ramnagar against (1)the Executive Service Authorise Centre for LG India Pvt. Ltd, Krishnanagar(here-in-after called as the “O.P. No.1”) and (2)Giriraj Furniture, Krishnagar, Agartala, West Tripura(here-in-after called as the “O.P. No.2”) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

1.1 The fact of the case in short is that the complainant purchased Refrigerator from the O.P. No.2 on 16.11.2012 for Rs.74,000/-.

 

1.2 From the month of February, 2020 major problem started in the refrigerator. Compressor warranty was for 10 years.

1.3 Complainant verbally requested to the service centre and also through online. Technician examined and opined that there is defect in spare parts and needed change of spare parts. The complainant was ready to bear the expenses but technician stopped visiting the complainant inspite of the complainant personally visited the O.P. No.1.

1.4 Thereafter the complainant contacted Executive Service Centre of LG who informed that the company  has stopped manufacturing the said model of Refrigerator. Hence, spare parts  were not available.

1.5 The Complainant also contacted Guahati Regional Service Centre on 16.10.2020, 25.10.2020 & 26.10.2020 but to no good. 

1.6 Now, the complainant contacted O.P. No.2 who stated that the matter is related to service centre only.

1.7 Complainant is facing day to day difficulties since the said refrigerator become non- functional. 

1.8 Complainant served Legal Notice on 25.03.2021 but no answer received.

1.9 Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking compensation on the ground of deficiency in service by the O.P. No.1.

 

2. O.P. No.1 resisted the case of the complainant stating inter alia that there is 2 years warranty on the unit and 10 years warranty on the compressor. On 03.04.2018 i.e., after 5 years 8 months the complainant contacted O.P. No.1 and accordingly the O.P. No.1 changed the capacitor of the unit and the refrigerator become functional.

2.1 Again the complainant contacted the O.P. No.1 on 19.08.2020, 17.02.2021 and 17.04.2021 raising issue about the unit. On inspection, it was found that the Heater connector was damaged due to fungus and the cause of damage was external in nature and there was no inherent defect in the unit. The complainant could not place or use the product maintaining the product safety as per instruction of the company.

2.3 The case has been proceeding exparte against the O.P. No.2 vide  order dated 17.05.2022.

 

3. Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit and also some documents.

3.1 The O.P. No.1 also submitted their evidence on affidavit.

 

4. On perusal of the complaint, written objection filed by the O.P. No.1, evidences and hearing argument the following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

5. Both the points are taken up together.

5.1 It is case of the complainant that the fridge started  non-functioning after 5 years 8 months from the date of purchase. It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant was  ready to bear the cost of the spare parts for repairing the refrigerator. It is the further case of the complainant that being contacted the Regional  Office, Guahati informed that the company had stopped manufacturing spare parts of that particular model of refrigerator. 

5.2 The service Centre i.e., the O.P. No.1 changed the capacitor of the refrigerator and made the same functional. Thereafter, the refrigerator again stopped functioning. On inspection now it was detected that the Heater connector was damaged due to fungus and the case of such damages was external in nature and there was no inherent defect in the unit of the refrigerator. The reason of such defect was non keeping the refrigerator in proper place maintaining safety of the refrigerator as per instruction of the company.

5.3 It is an admitted position that the warranty of the unit was for 2 years but the warranty on the compressor of the refrigerator was for 10 years. The complainant reported defect with the refrigerator after 5 years 8 months. As such warranty period of 2 years on the unit expired. It is not the case of the complainant that the service centre ever detected any defect with the compressor for which warranty period was 10 years. 

5.4 The main defect as we find in this case is that the manufacturing company had stopped manufacturing that model of refrigerator and the parts of that model which is the main reason for which the refrigerator could not be made functional by the O.P. No.1 as the Heater connector was damaged.

5.5 The O.P. No.2 is the Seller of the refrigerator and as such the O.P. No.2 is not in any way liable for such alleged defects with the refrigerator and the O.P. No.2 is also not liable for adopting any type of unfair trade practice as per the C.P. Act, as such we do not find any merit in the allegations of the complainant inspite of the fact that the complainant might have faced day to day difficulties due the defect in the refrigerator.

6. Both the points re decided accordingly.

7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed however, without cost.   

8. Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to both the parties.   

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM  DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.