BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.75-2015

DATED ON THIS THE 18^th December 2015

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 2(1)(r) and section 12 of the C.P.Act, against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to levy punitive damages for the deceptive trade practices adopted by the opposite parties by luring the consumers to purchase the consumer durables and sought other reliefs.
2.     The complainant No.1 being a registered voluntary consumer organization representing the interest of the consumers at large filed this complaint jointly with complainant No.2, against the opposite parties, alleging that the opposite parties have lured the consumers and the complainant No.2 to purchase their consumer durable products, despite of knowing some of the models of their products are going to be phased out and the spare parts of those products may not be available to meet the demands after sales service.  The complainant alleges that the opposite party No.1, through its dealers, sold hundreds of refrigerators with promise that they carries guarantee and the products are trust worthy for its quality, performance and its genuine spares for a longer happy living.  On failure to replace the damaged spare parts, due to non-availability in stock and offer of refund of only 55% of the total value of the products, were alleged as deceptive trade practice adopted by the opposite parties and sought for the reliefs.
3.     The opposite party No.2 being a ISO-9001:2008 certified company, denies that there is no unfair trade practice and they have not lured its customers with false assurances for the models being phased out.  There are about 780 authorized service centres across the country to provide service to its esteemed customers.  The problem caused to the refrigerator was due to wrong handling.  The door, if handled gently would not have caused the damaged to the hinge at the bottom.  Further, the non-availability of spare parts was due to phasing out of the particular model, which is a part of continuous R&D of the products manufactured.  On the depreciation, the complainant was offered for refund of money or for exchange of another product on pro-rata basis as per the company policy, for which the complainant did not responded positively with malafide intention to harass the opposite parties and  trying to enrich himself as an aggrieved consumer without any basis.  The prayer of imposing punitive damages on opposite parties is not justifiable, as there is no unfair trade practice adopted by opposite parties.  As such prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
4.    Both parties lead their evidence by filing affidavit. Opposite party No.3 failed to appear, hence placed exparte. Written arguments filed both parties and heard oral submissions.  On perusal of the material on board, matter posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainants proves the unfair trade practice adopted on the part of the opposite parties and thereby entitled for the reliefs sought?
2. What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- It is true that the refrigerator purchased by the complainant No.2 was carrying ten years warranty on its linear compressor.  The brochure also speaks of the benefits of the LG products, wherein the products are ensured for smooth functioning and assurance of round the clock service with genuine spare parts for longer period.
8.    The opposite party admitted the breakage of the plastic part at the bottom hinge.  Though the complainant was ready to pay the charges for the replacement of the defective / damaged part, the opposite parties failed to resolve the problem by quoting the reason of non-availability of the spare parts in stock.  The opposite party company ought to have maintain the spare parts in its stock, as the products sold serves the customers beyond the period of warranty/guarantee.  The reason assigned by opposite parties, that the particular model of the product had been phased out, as such the genuine spare parts were not available in stock was not justifiable.
9.    A company certified with SO 9001:2008 shall not escape from its liability of serving its esteemed customers.  Further, the sticker affixed on the refrigerator declares that the linear compressor carries ten years of warranty, whereas the document under the heading “warranty” says the compressor carries only one year warranty, which certainly amounts to unfair trade practice by opposite parties.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally hereby directed to replace the defective part with genuine defect free spare part or pay the cost of the new part to the 2^nd complainant, within 30 days of this order.
3. The opposite parties are hereby jointly and severally held liable to pay a sum of `5,000/- to the 2<sup>nd</sup> complainant for mental agony and `2,000/- to the 1^st complainant towards the cost of the proceedings  , within 30 days of this order.
4. The opposite parties are hereby jointly and severally shall pay a sum of `25,000/- as punitive damages, and deposit the same to the District Consumer Welfare Fund, within 30 days of this order.
5. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 18^th day of December 2015)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER