Haryana

Karnal

CC/311/2022

Hervinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager LG Electronics India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

MohinderJeet Singh

21 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 311 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.30.05.2022

                                                          Date of Decision 21.12.2022

 

Hervinder Kaur wife of Mr. Mohinderjeet Singh, resident of House no.1060, Sector 6, Urban Estate, Karnal. Mobile no.9896133414.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The General Manager LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. H-159, H-Block, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201307 through Manager 1^st floor building of Rahul Honda, LG India opposite Maruti Showroom, Meerut Road, Karnal.

 

2.     M/s Sargam Electronics, Kunjpura Road Karnal through its proprietor/partner Mr. Jagjeet Singh Chawla.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Mohinderjeet Singh, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Mohit Sachdeva, counsel for OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 given up.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased refrigerator from OP no.2 i.e. duly authorized agent of OP no.1 named M/s Sargam, Kunjpura Road, Karnal, vide retail invoice no.KARNAL/04671 dated 29.03.2017 for an amount of Rs.55000/-. It was assured by the said dealer that it has ten years warranty and if there would be any defect in the machinery or any part thereof in the refrigerator, it would either be replaced or refrigerator would be exchanged free of cost. The said refrigerator has become in-operative and non-functional suddenly for the last three months. Complainant approached the OP no.2 and he provided a toll free number for lodging a complaint with the company. The complaint was duly lodged. The service agency deputed a mechanic for rectification of the defect. The said mechanic told the complainant due to defective plate heater the refrigerator of the complainant cannot be repaired as per HO directions, the refrigerator will be replaced as per depreciation policy. An email was sent by Ravi Kumar on 07.04.2022 from his mail address to Mr. Dheeraj, agent of OP no.1. The copy of said message was sent by Dheeraj Anand to the complainant. It was alleged in the email message that as per depreciation policy 75% would be deducted and 25% would be refundable i.e. Rs.13,750/-. One slab up will be considered 65% depreciation and 35% refundable amount which will be Rs.19250/-. Alternate model of your choice 20% discount will be tried to consider as per HO approval. Complainant sent the reply of the said email alleging therein that the refrigerator is currently under ten years warranty period, hence the company is responsible to replace the refrigerator without any charges. The complainant again sent email  dated 10.05.2022 to replace the refrigerator. The mechanic who attend the complaint stated that there is inherent technical unserviceable defect in the said refrigerator. The refrigerator can catch fire or burst at any time, thus causing fatel accident if the said refrigerator is operated. Because of the said cause the said refrigerator is lying closed since then. The technician of the company also indicated that the company has stopped manufacturing of the said refrigerator on account of inherent defect of plate heater as per HO directions. It is further averred that summer season is at its peak in North India and the complainant is finding it difficult in running of the day to day activity in the absence of refrigerator as there are small children in the family. The refrigerator is essential commodity for the family. Without refrigerator, it is impossible to run the domestic affair. The complainant is suffering a great hardship in day to day functioning of the household. Inspite of several messages, OP did not take any action for the replacement of the refrigerator. Complainant also approached the Manager LG, Karnal for seeking assistance for replacement of refrigerator but he also refused to take any action. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.05.2022 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 i.e. LG Electronics is a renowned company in Electronics Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased the refrigerator in question on 29.03.2017 with the warranty of ten years. However, it is wrong and denied that warranty means that the product will be replaced or exchanged free of cost. In fact warranty of ten years means that the warranty of one year for the whole refrigerator + nine years warranties of the compressor of the refrigerator only. The complainant used the refrigerator for almost five years without any trouble. It is admitted fact that the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and found that the plate heater of the refrigerator has become dead which cannot be repaired as per the terms and conditions of the company. Therefore, complainant offered commercial solution, the complainant used the refrigerator for a period of almost five years without any defect or trouble. Hence, as per depreciation policy, complainant is liable to pay the depreciated amount for the replacement of the refrigerator. Earlier the complainant gave her consent for the same but lateron she revoked from her consent. The service engineer told the complainant that the refrigerator is bearing any inherent technical unserviceable defect. The technician of the OP also indicated that the company has now stopped manufacturing of the refrigerator on account of inherent defect of plate heater. It is further pleaded that the company changes its models of the products after every three years. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 given up by the complainant by suffering separate statement dated 08.08.2022.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1, copy of invoice Ex.CW2, copy of email dated 04.04.2022 Ex.CW3, copy of email by Ravi Kumar Ex.CW4, copy of legal notice dated 05.05.2022 Ex.CW5, postal receipt Ex.CW6 and closed the evidence on 25.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Batra, Service Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 18.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents mentioned in the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased a refrigerator for a sum of Rs.55,000/- from the OP no.2, vide invoice dated 29.03.2017 with the warranty of ten years. At the time of purchasing, it was assured by the OPs if there would be any defect in the machinery or any part thereof in the refrigerator, it would either be replaced free of cost or it will be repaired. The said refrigerator has become in-operative and non-functional suddenly and complainant complained the OPs. The service agency deputed a mechanic for rectification of the defect. An email was sent by Ravi Kumar on 07.04.2022 in this regard. Complainant sent the reply of the said email alleging therein that the refrigerator is currently under ten years warranty period, hence the company is responsible to replace the refrigerator without any charges. He further argued that inspite of several messages, OPs neither repaired refrigerator nor replaced the defective refrigerator. The complainant is suffering a great hardship in day to day functioning of the household and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the refrigerator in question on 29.03.2017 with the warranty of ten years. The complainant used the refrigerator for almost five years without any trouble. He further argued that the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and found that the plate heater of the refrigerator has become dead which cannot be repaired as per the terms and conditions of the company, so the OP offered commercial solution to the complainant as he had used the refrigerator for a period of almost five years without any defect or trouble so as per depreciation policy, complainant is liable to pay the depreciated amount for the replacement of the refrigerator and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, on 29.03.2017 complainant has purchased the refrigerator in question from the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.55000/- with the warranty of ten years. It is also admitted that the defect occurred in the refrigerator during the warranty period.

11.           As per version of complainant, she purchased refrigerator in question from the OP no.1 with the warranty of ten years. The said refrigerator has become defective during the warranty period. Complainant approached the OPs for repairing or replacing of the refrigerator in question but OPs failed to repair the same despite their best efforts. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times for replacement of the defective refrigerator as the same is having manufacturing defect and was within warranty period and beyond repair but OPs failed to do so.

12.           As per version of the OP no.1, the plate heater of the refrigerator has become dead which cannot be repaired as per the terms and conditions of the company, so the OP offered commercial solution to the complainant as he has used the refrigerator for a period of almost five years without any defect or trouble so as per depreciation policy, complainant is liable to pay the depreciated amount for the replacement of the refrigerator.

13.           To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.CW2, copy of email dated 04.04.2022 Ex.CW3, copy of email by Ravi Kumar Ex.CW4. On perusal of email Ex.CW4 which was sent by one Ravi Kumar representative of the company stated that due to heater defective refrigerator cannot be repairable as per HO direction refrigerator will be replaced as per depreciation policy.

14.           OP has also taken a plea that the company has stopped manufacturing of the refrigerator on account of inherent defect of plate heater and company changes its models of the products after every three years. Complainant cannot be blamed for that. It becomes the duty of the OP, if the production obsolete and spare parts are also not available with the OPs, then OPs are duty bound to replace the refrigerator in question with new model.  In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the refrigerator in question is having a manufacturing defect and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem of the complainant. Hence the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           During the course of arguments, complainant submits that now she has purchased new refrigerator and she does not want to replace the same and wants to refund the total cost of the refrigerator in question, alongwith litigation expenses, compensation in lieu of mental agony and harassment.

16.           Complainant has purchased the refrigerator in question in the year, 2017 and the defect occurred in the refrigerator in the year 2022. This fact has also been proved from the email Ex.CW3 sent by the complainant to OP. Meaning, thereby, complainant enjoyed the refrigerator in question near about five years. It would be justified if 35% of the total value is deducted being depreciation value of the refrigerator in question. The value of the refrigerator was Rs.55000/- and after deducting 35% it has come to Rs.35,750/-. Thus, complainant is entitled for Rs.35,750/-.

17.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.35,750/- to the complainant. Complainant is also directed to return the old refrigerator in question alongwith accessories to the OP. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:21.12.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member

Sushma

Stenographer