Haryana

Ambala

CC/127/2022

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.G. India Head Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Devender Sharma

09 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	127 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	20.04.2022
Date of decision	:	09.07.2024

Rajinder Kumar, aged about 43 years, son of Sh.Balbir Singh, resident of B-8, Dhulkot Power House Colony, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.         

……. Complainant.

Versus

1. L.G. India Head Officer: D-59, Site 4, Industrial Area, Kasna Road, Surajpur, Greater Noida, UP 201304, through its authorized signatory.
2. Madaan Electronics, Prem Nagar, Main Road, Ambala City, Haryana, through its authorized signatory.
3. BEE ESS AAR Communication- ASP 93, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt, (Service Center), through its authorized authority.

   ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

         Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Devender Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                      Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

                      OP No.3 already ex parte.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

a) To refund the amount of Rs.39,000/- i.e. the cost of the sound bar.

b) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss, harassment, pain and agony suffered by the complainant.

c) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

                                      OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Sound Bar (LG SN8YG Model) from  the OPs vide Bill no.24185 dated 22.4.2021 for an amount of Rs.39,000/-, on installments, which carried warranty for the period of one year. The said sound bar had been purchased by the complainant on installments and he continued paying the installment of Rs.1995/- per month and the same was deducted from his account. After purchasing the said sound bar, the complainant was using the same without any interruption. In the month of March 2022, the said sound bar started creating problems and the matter was reported to the OPs through online vide complainant No.2203120900011. One person of the OPs namely Om Parkash approached the complainant and after checking the said sound Bar, repaired it and replaced the sub-buffer, which was not of LG Company but the same is made in china. Thereafter, the said sound bar did not work properly. The complainant again lodged a complaint with the OPs vide complaint no.220324021026. The said person again came to the complainant and after checking the said sound bar, told him to take the said sound bar to OP No.1. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.1 along with the said sound bar, but the OP No.1 did not attend the complainant and refused to take any action in this matter. The complainant again and again made complaints to the OPs, but all in vain and till date the said sound bar is not working properly. A few day ago when the complainant approached and requested the OPs either to repair or replace the said sound bar with new one or to return an amount of Rs.39,000/- but they refused to do so. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint; the complainant has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; the complainant has got no cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 i.e. L.G. Electronics is a renowned company in Electronic' Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic products for Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated. The complainant has not placed on record any technical expert report to prove that the Sound Bar in question is having any manufacturing defect. Upon receipt of the said call, the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and replaced the Woofer of the said Sound Bar and made the same in perfect working condition. However it is wrong and denied that the said woofer so replaced does not belong to OP No.1. The service engineer of OP no.1 advised the complainant to take the said sound bar to OP No.2 just for comparison of the said sound bar of the complainant with that of new ones lying with OP No.2. The complainant took his sound bar to OP No.2, where the same was compared in all aspects with the new ones and no fault of any kind was found to be there in the sound bar of the complainant. When there is no problem found in the said sound bar, then no question of giving any replacement or paying any amount. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.3 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.06.2022.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 tendered affidavit of Vikas Batra, Authorized Signatory of OPs No.1 and 2-L.G. Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure RX and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2.  
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by neither rectifying the defective sound bar in question, despite the fact that the same was under warranty period, nor refunding the price thereof, as it suffered from inherent manufacturing defect, the OPs are deficient in rendering service and adopted unfair trade practice.  
8.           On the contrary, learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2, while reiterating the objections raised and pleas taken in written version submitted that since the complainant failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the said sound bar or that the sub-buffer replaced was made in china, as such this complaint seeking refund of the amount paid against the said sound bar is not maintainable. He further submitted that during the warranty period when the said sound bar was found defective, it was made functional, upto the satisfaction of the complainant.
9.           Complainant has alleged that the sound bar in question is having manufacturing defect and the sub-buffer replaced by the OPs was made in china. In support of his allegations, the complainant has produced his own affidavit and except that no other evidence has been produced by him.  It is not out of place to mention here that the complainant has neither moved any application under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before this Commission nor has placed on record, any expert/lab report/opinion from which this Commission is convinced that the sound bar in question suffered from any manufacturing defect(s) or that the sub-buffer replaced was made in china. It may be stated here that that the affidavit of the complainant is no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the said sound bar was indeed suffering from any defect or that the sub-buffer replaced was made in china. When OPs No.1 and 2 have taken the specific plea that there is no manufacturing defect in the bar sound and after replacing the sub-buffer, it is working properly, then it was the duty of the complainant to rebut the same by filing the expert opinion or lab report or to move an application before this Commission to get inspection of the sound bar in question by any expert but he failed to do so. The mere fact that the sound bar has admittedly been repaired once during warranty period of one year did not entitle to seek refund of the amount paid against it or its replacement. Also, mere placing on record the details of calls made to the OPs and that perusal whereof reveals that the complainant has spoken only twice or thrice with the OPs is not a sufficient evidence to prove that the said sound bar is suffering from manufacturing defect.
10.           In our considered opinion, when a manufacturing defect is alleged in any good/product, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant, which in the present case is find missing.  In 2017 (3) CPR 24 (NC) [Baljit Kaur Vs Divine Motors and Anr.] the Hon'ble National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner-Baljit Kaur by holding as under:-

"….While it is true that this has no relation with any manufacturing defect, it is also true that the manufacturing defect as alleged has not been proved before the fora below, by reference to any expert report in this regard. When a manufacturing defect is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant had produced, in support of her allegation of manufacturing defect, her own affidavit alongwith affidavit of 7-8 more witnesses. The District Forum correctly held - and the state commission concurred - that that these affidavits are no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the vehicle was indeed suffering from some manufacturing defect (s)..."

11.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 09.07.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President