Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/100

Dhruv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Prop. LG Service Center - Opp.Party(s)

20 May 2019

ORDER

Complainant Dhruv Kumar has filed this case for claim of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs 5,000/- as compensation and Rs 2,000/- as litigation Cost.

2          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant Dhruv Kumar has purchased a L.G. Air Conditioner on Year 2005. In the Year 2016 the aforesaid air conditioner becomes none functional and after several maintenance it would be operated at cost of Rs 10,000 approximately. Again in the year of 2018 aforesaid AC Started not working, thereafter complainant got repaired the AC after paying Rs. 22,00/- . Suddenly that AC is not working, about this complainant has complained in the service centre but all in vain, lastly complainant sent a notice to the service centre for the repair for the aforesaid AC but the service centre has not taken any pain to do repair, hence this case has been filed.

3          Following documents have been filed by the complainant

            Anx-1- Photo copy of warranty card of AC dated 15-08-2005

            Anx-2- Photo copy of service voucher dated 27-08-2018

            Anx-3- Photo copy of notice to O.P. dated 17-07-2018

4          After issuance of notice O.P. appeared and filed his W.S. It is stated that this complaint is baseless and not acceptable. It is further stated that this complaint petition is entirely false and the motor of the AC was not repaired previously, rather only for Rs. 22,00/- on 27-08-2018 but the motor of the AC needs to be repaired which could cost of Rs. 26,00/- and complainant never gave his consent to repair the same. It is further stated that the said AC of the complainant was not within warranty/guaranty period, as provided by the LG company and complainant refused to rectify/ repair of the motor of the AC on payment, so that said problem had not been attendant by the O.P. it is further stated that this complainant has not come before Your honour forum with clean hand and this complaint petition is baseless because the AC was not within warranty/ guaranty period and it liable for dismissed with cost

FINDINGS

5          We perused the record. We hold that complainant is a consumer and dispute is consumer dispute.

6          It is admitted by the O.P., that the service was provided and gas was refilled and A.C. was functioning. But after some days, it again did not functional due to fault in the motor which was attended by the service boy and advised to get the motor repaired on cost because the warranty period had already lapsed. But the complainant did not willing to pay the cost. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service.

            Complainant desired to pass order directing O.P. to rectify all the parts for proper functioning of the A.C.

7          We, in fact, do not found any deficiency in service of the O.P. However, it is directed to rectify any other defects apart from motor by O.P. within reasonable time.

            With this direction to O.P. the case is disposed of.

            O/C is directed to deposit the record in Record Room.