Haryana

Karnal

CC/230/2015

Ravinder Kumar S/o Dodagar Mal - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. L.G. Electronic India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.230 of 2015

                                                               Date of instt.: 24.09.2015

                                                               Date of decision: 09.06.2016

 

Ravinder Kumar son of Shri Sodagar Mal resident of house no.D-88, Kalanderi Gate, Karnal, Mobile no.9466052205

 

.                                                                                       ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Super Tyre Building, near Anaz Mandi, opposite New world Restaurant, G.T. Road, Karnal (Haryana)-132001 through its Branch Service Manager.

2. L.G. Service Centre, Gali no.8, Hansi Road, Karnal through its proprietor.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before            Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                        Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Complainant in person.

                          Sh. Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for opposite parties.

                                               

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that on 10.11.2008 he purchased one single door refrigerator from Chaudhary Electronics G.T. Road Shyam Nagar, Karnal, for Rs.11,200/-, vide bill no.7200. The said refrigerator carried warranty of seven years, which was to expire on 9.11.2015. However, within two years of purchase cracks developed in the body of the refrigerator. He lodged complaint in that regard. On 29.05.2010 the refrigerator was replaced, vide bill no.1154 dated 29.5.2010. In March, 2015, again cracks developed in the body of the refrigerator. He made complaints to the opposite parties number of times, but the opposite parties neither repaired nor replaced his refrigerator. On 19.9.2015 also he made complaint to the opposite parties. On that, one Manish visited his house and took photographs of all parts of the refrigerator, but went away without repairing the same. When he complained to the customer care, he was told that there was no warranty for the cracks. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which he suffered mental pain and harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached with clean hands and that the complainant has got no locus standi and caused of action to file the complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the refrigerator of the complainant was replaced on 29.5.2010. The cracks developed in the refrigerator of the complainant due to mis-handling and not due to manufacturing defect. The service engineer also told the complainant that the cracks were due to mis-handling, but the complainant remained adamant for replacement of the refrigerator. It has further been pleaded that the refrigerator had become out of warranty. The complaint has been filed  by the complainant to get replaced his refrigerator, which is perfectly working and grab money illegally from the opposite parties.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C5.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Jyoti Prasad Chaturvedi Ex.OP1/A has been tendered.

5.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant had purchased one refrigerator on 10.11.2008. The said refrigerator was replaced by new one by the opposite parties on 29.05.2010. The allegation of the complainant is that warranty of the refrigerator is of seven years, but during warranty period the cracks developed in the body of the refrigerator. The opposite parties have also not disputed the factum of cracks developed in the body of the refrigerator, but it has been pleaded that the cracks developed due to mis-handling.

7.                The material question which arises for consideration is whether the company L.G. Electronics India Private Ltd. provided warranty of every part of the refrigerator for seven years as claimed by the complainant. The copy of the warranty card is Ex.C4. On front portion of the warranty card, warranty of seven years  on refrigerator has been mentioned, but the general terms and conditions have been mentioned on the back of the said page. Condition regarding warranty period has been mentioned at 16^th place, which reads as under:-

  “ LG Refrigerator comes with 1+6 year warranty, from the date of purchase that comprises of one year warranty on all parts (except light, blub, consumable , loose plastic parts, glasses) in the first year and thereafter six years additional warranty on the compressor from the date of purchase of the product.”

                   The language of the said condition is quite clear and unambiguous that warranty of all parts except blub, consumables, loose plastic and glasses is for one year and for the compressor is seven years from the date of purchase. The complainant purchased the refrigerator on 10.11.2008. The warranty of all parts expired after one year and thereafter the warranty for compressor only continued upto seven years. There is no allegation of the complainant that there is defect in the compressor. His allegations is only that the cracks have developed in the plastic body of the refrigerator but such cracks are not covered under the warranty after expiry of one year from the date of purchase. Consequently, the opposite parties are neither bound to repair the refrigerator without charges nor replace the same on account of such cracks in the body  and in this way there was no deficiency in service on their part.

8.                In view of the foregoing circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 09.06.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member