G.S. Gill son of Sh.Nahar Singh Gill, resident of 114, Vishal Nagar, Extension, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.
(Complainant)
Vs.
1. M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.51,Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, U.P. through its Director.
2. M/s As –U-Like Electronics, (authorised LG Service Centre), 642-L, Model Town, Ludhiana through its partner/proprietor.
(Opposite parties)
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
….
Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.
Present:
Complainant in person
None for opposite parties (ex-parte)
O R D E R
T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Complainant had purchased a washing machine make LG WP 1022M from M/s New Mehtab Radios, Model Market, Ludhiana , distributor of opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 is authorised service centre of the manufacturer OP No.1. Complainant on 2.2.2007 had entered into a Maintenance Contract No.3031 with the opposite party no.2 valid from 2.2.2007 to 1.2.2008 by paying Rs.850/-. Under the contract, opposite party no.2 had agreed to repair the washing machine free of cost during the period of contract. During continuation of the contract in last week of Jan.2008, washing machine developed problem. Hence, problem was conveyed to opposite party no.2 but none came to repair the same. Then complaint was registered with call centre at Gurgaon on 28.1.2008. Thereafter, two persons Satnam Singh and Amarinder Singh came to the house of the complainant and told him that they will subsequently come to take the machine to service centre but none turned up. After waiting for few days, complainant got the machine repaired from G.N. Air Condition and Refrigeration by spending Rs.500/- from his pocket. As the machine was required for daily use, none has come to repair the same. Same is claimed to be deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, consequently claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation, refund of Rs.850/- and payment of Rs.500/- spent on repair of the machine.
2. Opposite parties in reply denied any deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that on receipt of complaint of the complainant, engineer on next day visited house of the complainant. He was apprised that the machine was to be taken to the service centre, and as such rehra was also sent to the complainant’s premises but the complainant refused to deliver the machine and insisted to carry out the job at his house. Then on 31.1.2008, Satnam Singh Service Engineer went to the premises and made machine fully functional to satisfaction of the complainant but the complainant refused to sign the job sheet. After filing reply, opposite parties did not contest the complaint and were proceeded ex-parte.
3. In order to prove his complaint, complainant tendered is own affidavit along with documents.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have gone through the file and scanned the documents and other material on record.
5. Complainant in ex-parte evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents. Invoice Ex.C.2 shows that on 23.10.2004 complainant had purchased the washing machine from New Mehtab Radios, Model Town Market, Ludhiana and had entered into Annual Maintenance Contract Ex. C.3 dated 2.2.2007 with opposite party no.2 by paying maintenance charges of Rs.850/- under receipt Ex.C.4 dated 2.2.07. The complainant had filed copy of the legal notice Ex.C.6 dated 11.2.2007 issued to opposite party no.1 alleging deficiency in service and thereafter issued e-mail Ex.C.8 dated 13.2.08. Opposite party no.1 then apologized inconvenience cause, due to not proper services rendered at their branch. They assured him taking proper action within short time. Qua this e-mail complainant sent reply Ex.C.7 . He has also placed on record receipt Ex.C.5 dated 5.2.08 for Rs.500/- of M/s G.N. Air Condition & Refrigeration paid as service charges to repair the washing machine.
6. Complainant has proved his allegations by filing affidavit. Plea of the opposite party that the machine was repaired by their service engineer by going to his house is simply a defence of the opposite party without any proof thereof. In these circumstances, complainant has been able to establish that had entered into an Annual Maintenance Contract by paying Rs.850/- and the opposite party failed to comply with service contract. When his machine went out of order, complaint was lodged with opposite party but the defect was not removed. He got the same repaired from somebody else by paying Rs.500/-. By not repairing the washing machine of the complainant despite contract and receipt of money from him, opposite party have resorted to unfair trade practice and this act of opposite party would certainly amount to deficiency in service.
7. Therefore, we allow the complaint and order opposite party no.2 to refund charges of Rs,.850/- to the complainant for not honouring the Maintenance Contract and pay compensation and litigation cost compositely assessed at Rs.1500/- for causing harassment to him. Order be complied within 30 days f the receipt of copy of the same


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Submit Complaint..
