The complainant Randhir Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Jai Durga TV Centre and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Refrigerator of LG Company, Model REF-FF-T302RPZU 90INRAL 167776 vide invoice No.0396 dated 31.5.2019 from opposite party No.1 after paying its price Rs. 33,000/-.
It is alleged that after one month of purchase, the refrigerator started giving trouble as it was having some technical problem. The Service Boys of the opposite parties attended the complaints on many occasions but could not repair the refrigerator. Due to some major defect in the refrigerator, its cooling function was not working properly and the service engineers of the opposite parties were not able to do the needful. On asking by complainant about the position of refrigerator, they stated that it cannot be repaired but to be replaced.
The complainant further alleged that due to failure to provide services for repair of refrigerator of the complainant, complainant and his family put in lurch even after spending such a huge amount for purchase of refrigerator. The whole family of the complainant is suffering a lot of inconvenience at hands of opposite parties and had been fed up with the attitude and behaviour of company. The complainant on various occasions asked representatives of the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator or refund its price or repair the same as per standard specification of the company, but to no effect. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the opposite parties in this regard, but till date all efforts of the complainant have been flatly refused or ignored by the opposite parties, which compelled the complainant to seek legal remedy in the competent court of law.
The complainant also alleged that due to the abovesaid act of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant also alleged that he approached opposite party No.1 number of times and requested to remove his grievances, but to no effect. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator in question with new one or refund its price and also to pay to complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Registered A.D. notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 1.
The opposite party No. 2 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of opposite party No. 2 by filing frivolous claim. The complainant as and when lodged complaint with service centre of opposite party No. 2, the same has been duly attended and service engineer checked the refrigerator but there was no defect in the refrigerator and same was perfectly working. That the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands.
It has been pleaded that the refrigerator in question is perfectly working when it was last serviced on 8-07-2019, all the parameters were within normal range and ice formation was also normal. Thereafter complainant has not reported any kind of problem. The service engineer was deputed who visited the house of complainant and throughly checked the refrigerator and there was no defect or problem in the refrigerator. The refrigerator of complainant was fully functional but complainant refused to sign the job sheet. Thereafter complainant has not reported any kind of problem in the working of the refrigerator. The complainant intentionally with ulterior motive has now filed the present complaint alleging totally false allegations and concealed the true facts.
Further preliminary objections are that the complainant has not sought the permission of this Comission under section 11(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before instituting the present complaint. That the present complaint has been filed on the basis of vague, evasive and false allegations. The refrigerator of complainant is perfectly working. That the complainant has concealed material and necessary information.
It has been pleaded that the obligation of opposite party No. 2 under warranty is to set right the refrigerator by repairing or replacing the defective part within one year of its purchase as the warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase. The complainant till date as and when lodged complaint with opposite party No. 2 regarding the refrigerator in question, the same was duly attended. The opposite party No. 2 through this reply also requested this Comission to get the refrigerator inspected from a duly qualified expert to access the exact present situation of the refrigerator.
The opposite party No. 2 has also pleaded that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement or refund of price of refrigerator along with compensation and damages. The complainant has neither alleged any specific ir-repairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any independent expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed.
It has been further pleaded that the complainant claimed the said Refrigerator to be suffering from defects, therefore, it is the legal duty, under the discharge of burden, upon the complainant to establish the same by Technical Expert Report but no such report has been adduced by the complainant till date before this Commission.
It has also been pleaded that the complainant has sought refund or replacement of refrigerator which is not permissible undere the law and also under the terms of warranty. The replacement or refund is only permissible where defect developed during the period of warranty is of such a nature that it cannot be cured or repaired. In the present case, there is no defect in the refrigerator as it was found to be perfectly working when checked by Service engineer of opposite party No. 2. Mere fact that the product was taken to the Service Station for one and two times, does not ipse facto prove the manufacturing defect.
Further preliminary objections are that the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 never denied after sales services with regard to the refrigerator.
On merits, the opposite party No. 2 reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of bill (Ex. C-1), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-2), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-3) and affidavit dated 13-8-2019 of complainant (Ex. C-4).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit dated 15-10-2019 of Harish Chopra (Ex. OP-2/1 and photocopy of Job Sheet (Ex. OP-2/2).
Learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 2 reiterated their stand as teken in their respective pleadings.
We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and gone through the record.
There is no dispute between the parties that complainant purchased one LG Refrigerator on 31-5-2019 from opposite party No. 1, manufactured by opposite party No. 2, for Rs. 33,000/- vide Invoice Ex. C -1.
The grudge of the complainant is that after one month of purchase refrigerator in question started giving trouble as there was no cooling in the refrigerator. The complainant alleged that he lodged repeated complaints with the opposite parties and Service Engineers/Mechanics sent by the opposite parties failed to repair the refrigerator. Therefore, he claims replacement of refrigerator in question with new one or refund of its price. However, the complainant has not placed on file any evidence to prove his complaints which he lodged with the opposite parties.
On the other hand, the version of opposite party No. 1 is that refrigerator in question is in perfectly working condition. The opposite parties denied that there is any defect in the refrigerator. The pleading of the opposite parties is that complainant has not produced any expert evidence on file to prove that there is any defect in the refrigerator and that too is of such a nature that cannot be cured or repaired. The opposite party No. 2 has also placed on file one Job Sheet (Ex. OP-2/2) to prove that their Service Engineer attended the complaints of the complainant on 2-7-19 and 8-7-19 and refrigerator was found in OK condition and temperature of freezer was -14 degree Celsius.
On 14-9-2021, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 got recorded statement that opposite party No. 2 is ready to repair the refrigerator in question within 20 days from today (14-9-21) and make it in working condition and videography of same will be done by engineers of opposite party No. 2 in the presence of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant agreed to this offer and got recorded statement that offer given by opposite party No. 2 is accepted by the complainant.
Thereafter on 29-3-2022, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 produced before this Commission one affidavit dated 21-9-21 of Varinder Kumar, engineer of opposite party No. 2 wherein said Varinder Kumar has deposed that he visited the premises of complainant on 17-9-21 at 12.00 p.m., but complainant did not allow him to inspect the product in question.
A perusal of file reveals that complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion/evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question. The direction for replacement of product or refund of its price cannot be given where consumer fails to prove manufacturing defect by leading expert evidence. However, Job Sheet (Ex. OP-2/2) produced on file by the opposite parties proved that complainant lodged complaints with the opposite parties regarding some defect in the refrigerator and further an offer was also given by opposite parties to repair the refrigerator, which was accepted by complainant. Therefore in such circumstances, when complainant knocked the door of this Commission, in the interest of justice to redress his grievance, the opposite parties can only be directed to repair the refrigerator of the complainant or in case, any part is irreparable, to replace the same free of cost under warranty terms and conditions.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted. The opposite parties are directed to repair the refrigerator of the complainant and in case, any part is irreparable, to replace the defective part free of cost under warranty terms and conditions.
The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
