Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/502/2017

Barinder Singh Ramana - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Pooja Sharma Adv. & Pradeep Sharma Adv.

06 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	502 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	30.06.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	06.12.2017

 

 

 

 

Barinder Singh Ramana s/o Lt. Col. Gurpal Singh Ramana (Rtd.), resident of House No.1016, Sector 24-B, presently posted as OSD (Vigilance), Punjab, High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Plot NO.51, Surajpur, Kasna Roadm, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida, U.P. India (201306) through its Managing Director.

2]  LG Hightech, Authorised Service Centre, SCO No.233,  Village Mattaur, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager.

3]  The Manager, LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Plot NO.194-195, 2^nd Floor, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.

4]  EKO Electrovision, Dharampura Bazar, Dharampura, Patiala, Punjab 147001

….. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:  MR.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      : Sh.Pardeep Sharma, Advocate  

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Arjun Grover, Advocate.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

        

          The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased one Refrigerator namely LG Electronics from Opposite Party No.4 in the year 2014 for an amount of Rs.38,500/- having one year warranty on the Refrigerator and 10 years warranty on its compressor.  It is averred that the refrigerator in question stopped giving cooling in Jan./Feb., 2017 and on lodging the complaint with OPs, the Engineer of the Company inspected it and found its compressor not working and needs replacement.  However, the compressor was not replaced as the compressor of the model of the refrigerator purchased by the complainant was not available with the Opposite Parties, and therefore, they offered to refund an amount of Rs.21,000/- on account of depreciation, to which the complainant refused. Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to the OPs, whereupon the OPs replaced the compressor of the refrigerator with compressor of other model as an alternative, but it was not compatible with the refrigerator in question and resultantly did not work.  It is submitted that the complainant was told by the OPs that the compressor for the model for the refrigerator is not available with them, despite the fact that OPs have declared 10 years warranty on the compressor.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that Engineer of the company found that the compressor of the refrigerator needs replacement as it was in irreparable condition, which was communicated to the complainant and accordingly, a brand new compressor was fitted/installed in the refrigerator free of cost as the product was under warranty period.  It is stated that on further inspection the service engineer found that there was leakage in the evaporator and the moisture condenser inside the sealed cabinet got rusted which is not repairable. It is also stated that the complainant was advised either to get refund as per depreciation policy of the company i.e. 55% of the value of the product amounting to Rs.21,000/- or get the refrigerator replaced with new one after paying the difference, but complainant insisted for refund of whole of the amount.  It is further stated that the Opposite Parties are ready to facilitate the complainant in terms of its depreciation policy.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       The complainant has also filed replication reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainant has purchased refrigerator make LG FF 349PSX5 for Rs.38,500/- on 2.4.2014 (Ann.C-1).  The refrigerator was having overall one year warranty, but its compressor had warranty for 10 years.  In Feb., 2017 i.e. just about 3 years of the purchase, the refrigerator of the complainant stopped working and on inspection by the OPs, it was found that the compressor of the refrigerator has developed fault, which could not be repaired.  The compressor of the refrigerator purchased by the complainant was not available with the OPs because the model of the same refrigerator admittedly stopped manufacturing by the Company.  As an alternative arrangement, the OPs installed compressor of some other model in the refrigerator of the complainant, but that did not work with the refrigerator being not compatible, resultantly, the refrigerator did not work.   The refrigerator of the complainant could not start working and the complainant failed to make use of the refrigerator despite having paid a huge amount of Rs.38,500/- on its purchase.  The Opposite Parties have admitted that the refrigerator of the complainant is beyond repair and offered to pay him Rs.21,000/- i.e. 55% of the value of the refrigerator to compensate him, but the same was not acceptable to the complainant.

 

7]       The LG Company has stopped manufacturing of refrigerator of the model, which has been sold to the complainant and the necessary parts of the said refrigerator were also not available with them to meet out the requirements of its customers in case of any fault occurred in the refrigerator so sold.

 

8]       In the name of upgradation of technology, the companies stop manufacturing certain products, but keep on selling products already in their store. In such circumstances, the companies are bound to redeem its customers to whom they have already sold their products by making sufficient arrangements for the availability of the spare parts to enable to provide service to the existing customers who have already been sold old model of the refrigerator/equipment by the company.

 

9]       The Opposite Parties, as is obvious from the facts in issue, suffer unfair trade practice on its part as well as deficiency in service to provide proper after sale repair/service of the refrigerator.

 

10]      Keeping into consideration the above facts, the present complaint is allowed with directions to the OPs to jointly & severally to pay back Rs.38,500/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

6^th December, 2017                                                                 Sd/-                                                  

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER