Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/2971/2017

Mr.C.R.Krishnamurthy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Private Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 16.11.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 10.08.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027        

 

CC.No.2971/2017

DATED THIS THE 10^th AUGUST OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	C.R.Krishnamurthy, S/o Late H.Rama Rao, Aged about 66 years, R/at No.746, 5th Main, Raghavendra Block, Srinagar, Bengaluru-560 050.   By.Adv.B.S.Aravinda Babu	1	LG Electronics India Private Limited., A Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office situated at No.A Wing, 3rd Floor, D-3, Dist. Center, Saket, New Delhi-110017.   G.Asokan-LGC Manager
		2	Adhishwar India Limited., A Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having one of its offices situated at No.302, 100 Feet Ring Road, 7th Block, 4th Phase, 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 085.   Deleted as per order dt.30.5.2018

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

1.       The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties directing to the 2^nd Opposite Party to bring the water purifier of the Complainant under its annual maintenance contract and service it properly from the date of final order for a period of two years without any additional costs or direct the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.12,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 12.5.2016 till the actual payment is made, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the costs of the Complainant’s innumerable telephone calls made and internet charges incurred for numerous emails sent and for loss of Complainant’s valuable time and energy, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental agony and sufferings, to pay the costs of this proceedings and grant other reliefs.

 

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Complainant had visited the showroom of the Opposite Party No.2 on 12.5.2015 for buying certain consumer durables. The salesman employed by the OP-2 who attended the Complainant on that day strongly recommended to buy consumer durables of LG Brand as the products and after sales service of the said brand items are very good and there are no complaints also from the consumers who have bought the items of the said branch. The Complainant who was thus persuaded has purchased 1) LG Frost free refrigerator 2) LG Top loading washing machine 3) LG water purifier from the OP-2. The Complainant has paid Rs.85,170/- to OP-2 in terms of the bill No.1051-53 dt.12.5.2015 raised by the OP-2. After delivery and installation of the items in the house of the Complainant, the service person of the OP-1 was visiting the house of the Complainant for servicing of LG water purifier. The service person has visited the house of the Complainant on 26.9.2015, 8.12.2016 and 12.5.2016 for servicing the LG water purifier. During the first visit itself, the service person has opened a service card issued by the OP-1 in which the service particulars of the water purifier has been entered. The Complainant submits that a service engineer by name Veeresh of the OP-1 who had visited the house of the Complainant on 12.5.2016, after servicing the water purifier informed the Complainant that the initial maintenance contract is coming to an end on 12.5.2016 and as such to renew the annual maintenance contract. The said service engineer further informed the Complainant that at that point of time a special scheme is prevailing for a limited period, wherein by paying Rs.12,000/- a customer can avail annual maintenance contract for two years. The Complainant to have his service contract in force for the next two years, agreed to the suggestion of the said sales person of the OP-1 and as requested by him paid Rs.12,000/- in cash to him on 12.5.2016. Earlier the Complainant had confirmed from the OP-1 call centre that cash can be paid to the service engineer towards AMC. Hence, the demand of the service engineer of the OP-1 to pay the amount in cash, was not suspected by the Complainant, as the service engineer from the OP-1 were regularly visiting the Complainant’s house. The said service engineer has issued the Complainant a job sheet of the OP-1 wherein he has acknowledged the receipt of Rs..12,000/- from the Complainant. At that point of time, the said sales engineer has informed the Complainant that the Complainant will receive an official receipt from the office of the OP-1 in a week’s time. The Complainant did not receive the receipt for his payment of Rs.12,000/- from the OP-1 even after the lapse of more than one week and as such the Complainant sent an e-mail on 23.6.2016 to one Mr.Devapalan, an Executive of the OP-1 informing him that the Complainant has paid Rs.12,000/- to Veeresh on 12.5.2016 towards AMC for two years and as such to give receipt for the said amount. But the Complainant did not receive any reply from the OP-1. The Complainant continuously followed up with the executives of the OP-1 and ultimately on 19.1.2017 i.e., after a lapse of 7 months, one Mr.N.Thavamani of the OP-1 has replied by an e-mail stating that OP-1 has not received the said amount and as such AMC has not been punched and invoice not generated. Thereafter, the Complainant has continuously requested the OP-1 to redress his grievance by giving AMC for two years as promised by the OP-1. Again on 23.4.2017, the Complainant has received an e-mail from the OP-1 stating that the concerned person of the company will contact him at the earliest. But thereafter till date nobody from the OP-1 Company has contacted the Complainant. On the other hand, the call center persons of the OP-1, are calling the Complainant and asking him to take fresh AMC for two years by paying Rs.12,000/-. The Complainant is a retired Government Official and after his retirement has purchased the household items of the OP-1 by investing his retirement benefits. The amount of Rs.12,000/- towards two years AMC to the service engineer Veeresh employed by the OP-1 paid by the Complainant is once again is his pension amount. The Complainant is not aware as to why the said Veeresh has not deposited the said amount with the OP-1. But whatever may be the reason for his not depositing the Complainant’s amount with the OP-1, he was an employee of the OP-1 and it was its duty to ensure right conduct on the part of its employee.  The non-issue of receipt for Rs.12,000/- received by an employee of the OP-1 to the Complainant and not bringing his water purifier into AMC as promised by him and further the apathy of the OP-1 in handling the grievance of the Complainant has caused financial loss and severe mental agony to the Complainant. Even the Complainant’s family members have been mentally agonized because of the intentional and malafide behavior of causing loss and anguish to him by the OP-1. The OP-2 is also equally responsible for the Complainant’s loss and agony as it has in the first instance recommended the Complainant to buy the products of the OP-1. As a declarer of the OP-1, it is the duty of the OP-2 to espouse the genuine grievance of the Complainant. The inaction in mitigating the grievance of the Complainant by both the Opposite Parties clearly amount to deficiency of service. The Complainant caused the issue of a legal notice dt.7.8.2017. The OP-1 has received the said notice but the notice sent to the OP-2 has come back undelivered. The Complainant once again collected the correct postal address and sent the undelivered cover under covering letter dt.25.8.2017 to the OP-1. The OP-1 has received the said notice. Inspite of receipt of the said notice by the OP-1, it has not cared to redress the genuine grievance of the Complainant. The Complainant as a last resort has sent an email dt.13.10.2017 to OP-1 for which, the company said that an official will contact. But nobody has contacted the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant sent an email dt.26.10.2017 to Thavamani of the OP-1 for which the said Thavamani, has once again stated that since the OP-1 has not received money from its employee Veeresh, it is not in a position to give AMC for two years for the water purifier. The Complainant submits that the non-deposit of an amount of Rs.12,000/- given by the Complainant towards taking AMC for his water purifier to an employee i.e., Veeresh of the OP-1 is an internal matter between the said employee and the OP-1 and the Complainant should not be penalized for the misdeeds of an employee of the OP-1. Infact by being a multi-national company, the OP-1 should not have drawn the hapless Complainant to this state, but should have generously settled the genuine grievance of the Complainant in the first instance. The non-settling of the genuine grievance of the Complainant by the OP-1 clearly establishes that it is only interest in dumping its products but not interested in enquiring and mitigating its customers’ grievances. The inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in either refunding his amount of Rs.12,000/- + interest or bringing his water purifier under AMC of OP-1 for two years clearly amounts to deficiency of service on their part.  Hence, the Complainant submits to allow this complaint.  

 

          3.       On 30.5.2018, the learned counsel for the Complainant filed memo to delete the name of 2^nd Opposite Party since it is a formal party. On issuance of the notice, the 1^st Opposite Party appeared. On 11.6.2018, the representative of the 1^st Opposite Party filed memo. According to him, it is a version which read thus:

“The claim made by Complainant is false with vested interest to extract under benefit from reputed organization LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT LTD. Whenever any customer entered annual maintenance contract with LG ELECTRONICS, we issue HLP form (Annual Maintenance Form) with terms and condition along with receipt for the many received.

Complainant making illegal claims by showing job sheet which is used for internal purpose whenever there is a repair or demo done on the product. Complainant on this own written some amount on the job sheet and claiming that he is having Annual Manual Contract.

We have more than ten thousand customers in Bangalore under AMC who are all holding valid AMC invoice. Complainant without making any payment to LG ELECTRONICS claiming AMC benefit which is illegal. Considering the above true fact we request the honorable forum to dismiss this case”.

 

4. The Complainant to substantiate his case, filed his affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex-A1 to A7. The Opposite Party has not filed affidavit evidence. The Complainant has filed his written arguments. The Opposite Party has not filed written arguments. Heard.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

           

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1) Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency in service on

              the part of the OPs, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief

              sought for?

          2) What Order?

                  

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative 

Point No.2: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

 

7. POINT NO.1 :   We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version of the Opposite Party. In the instant case, the Complainant has sought for the specific relief of, to direct the Opposite Party to bring the water purifier under annual maintenance contract and service it properly from the date of the final order from this Forum for a period of two years without any additional costs. Further, direct the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.12,000/- to him together with interest at 18% p.a. from 12.5.2016 till the actual payment is made and also costs and compensation.

 

8.       According to the say of the Complainant, the water purifier was purchased from the 2^nd Opposite Party and the service engineer by name Veeresh of the 1^st Opposite Party visited his house on 12.5.2016. The said service engineer informed the Complainant that a special scheme is prevailing for a limited period, wherein by paying Rs.12,000/- a customer can avail annual maintenance contract for two years. Believing the words of the 1^st Opposite Party, he paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- in cash on 12.5.2016. In this context, he insisted the said service engineer for issuance of the receipt, but by one or the other pretext, he convinced the Complainant that he will issue the receipt later on. Though he paid Rs.12,000/-, the annual maintenance contract for two years has not been generated in the concerned department of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. The Complainant has no other go except to approach the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 who informed that the said scheme in which the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.12,000/-, is not received so far. Hence, they are unable to extend the availment for 2 years. But the say of the Complainant is that since so called service engineer by name Veeresh is the employee of the Opposite Party-1. If anything went wrong on account of the employee, the employer is responsible for the wrongful act.

 

9.       To substantiate with regard to the payment of Rs.12,000/- is concerned, the Complainant has produced the job sheet marked as Ex-A3 wherein it is specifically mentioned that on 12.5.2016 an amount of Rs.12,000/- has paid to the service engineer of the Opposite Party name called Veeresh. It appears that on receipt of the notice, the Opposite Party did appear. On 11.6.2018, one of the authorized representative of the Opposite Party filed memo which appears to be in the form of Version which is sketchy.  In the said memo, it is denied the allegations of the Complainant. If the entire contents of the complaint with reference to the affidavit in support of it and also documents produced by the Complainant, it is evident that on the advice of the service engineer, the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- to avail the annual maintenance contract for 2 years. The Opposite Party never denied that the so called service engineer is not their employee. When such being the fact, employer is liable for the act of the employee. In this context, this Forum has no other go except to direct the 1^st Opposite Party to extend the annual maintenance contract for the period of 2 years without further claiming any extra amount to the said water purifier since the Complainant has already paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- to its service engineer. With regard to the 2^nd Opposite Party, the Complainant has filed memo to delete the name of the 2^nd Opposite Party. Hence, the order is to be complied by the 1^st Opposite Party.  With regard to the refund of Rs.12,000/- so also the amount of Rs.25,000/- for the cost of telephone calls, internet charges etc., are hereby denied. So also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has sought for mental agony and sufferings from the Opposite Party, we have already ordered that the 1^st Opposite Party to extend the annual maintenance contract for 2 years from the date of this order. Hence, the question of payment of amount Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of compensation does not arise, as such the said claim is negated.  Anyhow we direct the 1^st Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,000/- being the costs of litigation.  Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.

 

10.     POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to extend the availment of Annual Maintenance Contract for 2 years from the date of this order in respect of the said water purifier. Further, the 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- being the cost of the litigation. Rest of the claims is hereby denied.

The Opposite Party is directed to comply this order within 6 weeks from the receipt of this Order. Failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to take proper steps as per law.

 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 10^th August 2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)     PRESIDENT

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

C.R.Krishnamurthy, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Receipt dt.12.5.2015
Ex-A2	Hygiene care card issued by the Opposite Party
Ex-A3	Job sheet issued by Opposite Party
Ex-A4	Hard copies of all email correspondences
Ex-A5	Office of the legal notice dt.7.8.2017 along with postal receipts
Ex-A6	Unserved cover
Ex-A7	Letter dt.25.8.2017 along with postal receipt

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)       MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)    PRESIDENT