BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 22 of 2016
Anwar Hussain Laskar, ……………………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1. L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
A.Wing (3rd Floor) D-3, District Center Saket
New Delhi-110017. O.P No.1.
2. Ghose & Sons, College Road, Silchar-4
Authorized Dealer, L.G. Electronics
P.S. Silchar, Dist. Cachar, Assam. O.P No.2.
3. Life Easy Electronics,
Authorized L.G. Service Centre, Norsingtola,
N.N. Dutta, Road, Silchar-2. O.P No.3.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Mr. Ramizur Rahman Bahlaskar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Gangesh Dutta, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 13-04-2017, 05-08-2017
Date of written argument……………… 05-09-2017, 07-10-2017
Date of oral argument………………….. 21-11-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 07-12-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- Anwar Hussain Laskar brought this complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against L.G Electronics Pvt. Ltd., its Authorized Dealer M/S Ghose & Sons, Silchar and Authorized Service Centre i.e. Life Easy Electronics, Silchar. The O.Ps are arrayed as O.P No.1, O.P No.2 and O.P No.3 respectively. The case brought for award of compensation and order for replace the Refrigerator or refund cost of the same.
- The case is brought on the ground as below:-
The complainant purchased a L.G. Refrigerator, vide Model No. D201 AMHI on 31-05-2016 for Rs.15,750/- from O.P No.2. Since, purchase the Refrigerator started problem of proper functioning. Accordingly inform the authorized dealer. On 05-07-2016 the Service Engineer visited the residence of the complainant and on inspection instructed to send the Refrigerator to Service Centre i.e. to O.P No.3. Accordingly, the Refrigerator send and after necessary repairing and changing 2(two) parts the Refrigerator brought back with cost of the complainant. But the Refrigerator started malfunction again. The Service Engineer was informed but nothing improved.
- The O.Ps have submitted their joint W/S. In the W/S denied allegation and took plea that the Service Engineer visited the house of the complainant and found the Refrigerator was ok.
- During hearing the complainant deposed on oath and exhibited some documents cash memo etc. The O.P also examined the Service Engineer Sahar Mazumder. After closing evidence both sides’ counsels submitted written argument. We have heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocates’ of the parties.
- The fact of purchasing the Refrigerator as stated by the complainant is admitted fact. The said Refrigerator was malfunction soon after purchase during the guarantee period is also admitted fact and the D.W by adducing evidence confirmed the said fact to say that he visited the house of the complainant on receiving the complaint and repaired the Refrigerator on 05-07-2016. But he deposed further that on subsequent visits he found the Refrigerator was ok.
- The complainant is not satisfying with the functioning of the Refrigerator and accordingly the Ld. Advocate of the complainant during verbal argument tried to make the fact believable that the Top Chamber of the Refrigerator became useless due to deposition of excessive Ice. He also stated that the door of the Refrigerator is unable to open due to excessive Ice deposition.
- Anyhow, there is no convincing proof of contradictory fact regarding malfunction of the Refrigerator except the statement of the complainant on oath. But it is a fact in view of the deposition of the D.W-1 that at first visit found the refrigerator was malfunctioning and accordingly he repaired it. But he did not disclose what malfunctioning he found which was required to correct by repairing. That is why, only statement of the D.W-1 that he found the Refrigerator was ok is not sufficient to revert the complain of the complainant regarding malfunctioning of the Refrigerator.
- Therefore, in that situation we believe the statement of the complainant by applying the principle of preponderance of probability. Thus, the O.P No.2 is asked to replace the Refrigerator and all the O.Ps are asked to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the proceeding of Rs.1,000/-. The compensation and cost to be paid along with replacement of the Refrigerator within 45 days from today. To satisfy the above award, all the O.Ps are both jointly and severally liable. If fail to satisfy award within the stipulated period, the awarded amount will fetch interest @ 10% per annum from today till realization of the same. Moreover, at the time of calculation of interest the value of the Refrigerator of Rs.15,750/- will be taken into consideration.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 7th day of December,2017.
