Haryana

Kurukshetra

28/2017

Tanuj Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Aggarwal

16 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.28/17.

Date of instt. 3.2.17. 

                                                                       Date of Decision: 16.05.2018.

 

Dr. Tanuj Aggarwal, resident of House No.837, Sector-5, , District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. United Sales Corporation, Opposite Harsh Cinema Red Road, Kurukshetra (authorized dealer).
2. Unique Solution 1783/5, Jyoti Nagar, Behind Grace Palace, Kurukshetra (service center).
3. LG Electronics India Private Limited, A Wing, 3^rd Floor, D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before            Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

     Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

                                       

Present:          Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant.              

 Op No.1 ex parte.

 Sh.  Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. for OPs No.2&3.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Tanuj Aggarwal against United Sales Corporation and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased one Refrigerator LG Model GL-368 vide bill No.1781 dated 12.2.2013. On 12.3.2016 there was some problem regarding the cooling of the above said Refrigerator and complainant immediately contacted to the dealer and the dealer advised the complainant to contact with service station. The complainant made a complaint to customer care and on receiving complaint, the technical assistant of the company visited the house of complainant and inspected the above said Refrigerator on 13.3.2016 and told that there was a PCB problem which was not functioning and same will be repaired and after repairing the PCB the refrigerator will working well and on the assurance of OP No.2 the complainant got installed the PCB on the next day but the functioning of the refrigerator remains same and the complainant informed the Ops. After information, OP No.2 again visited the house of complainant and assured that this time repairing of the above said PCB will be conducted by expert of his service center and they repaired the PCB and installed the same in the refrigerator on 15.3.2016 and they charged Rs.1500/- and assured the complainant that now refrigerator will work properly but after one hour the function of refrigerator stopped. The complainant immediately informed the Ops regarding the problem but they flatly refused to accede the request of complainant. The complainant time and again requested the Ops to remove the defect in the refrigerator but they did not pay any heed. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the refrigerator with new one or to refund the cost of the Refrigerator i.e. Rs.29,500/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, Rs.4,400/- as litigation expenses and to refund Rs.1500/- charged by the OP on account of repairing of refrigerator.

3.             OP No.1 has failed to come present despite service and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 22.3.2017.    

4.            OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering OP; that the refrigerator of the complainant bas become out of warranty as the same had been purchased on 10.2.2013. In fact the defect in the refrigerator has developed due to mishandling on the part of complainant and the part so defective in the refrigerator is not available in the company stock, so the complainant had been offered a refund after deducting 65% of the invoice value but the complainant adamantly demanded free of costs replacement of his refrigerator or refund of the whole amount of the invoice value; that the PCB of the refrigerator had been repaired and the refrigerator was made to be in perfect condition. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objection was reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

6.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.             There is no doubt that the refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant from the Ops.  It is also on record that some cooling problem was there in the said refrigerator and the Ops were contacted by the complainant but the problem could not be solved.  The Ops No.2 & 3 have placed on record that the complainant is entitled to the refund of 35% on the total cost.  However, there is nothing on record that the complainant shall be entitled to the refund of only 35% of the value.  We are of the considered view that when there was some cooling problem, the complainant is entitled to the full value of refrigerator i.e. Rs.29,500/- from the Op No.3.

8.             Thus, in these circumstances, we allow the complaint and direct the Op No.3 to refund Rs.29,500/- to the complainant.  The complainant is directed to deposit the refrigerator and other accessories with the service-centre of Ops.  The order; be complied within two months, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the above-said amount of Rs.29,500/- from the date of order till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  A copy of said order; be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member