Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/354

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.354 of 30.05.2018

Date of Decision            :   11.06.2018

 

Avtar Singh son of Shri Balwant Singh, resident of House No.4012/1, Street No.9, Daba Road, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                            Versus

 

1.M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, Plot No.51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Near Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida-201310, through its Managing Director.

2.M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., 14, Sua Road, Makkar Colony, Giaspura, Ludhiana, through its Manager.

3.M/s.Khurl Electro Point, Gill Road, Ludhiana, through its Partner/Proprietor.

…Opposite parties

 

                    (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant     :        Sh.Mandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                 As per case of complainant, he purchased LG refrigerator for a sum of Rs.91,000/- vide invoice dated 3.11.2015 from OP3 under a scheme, as per which, free LG Microwave also was provided to the complainant. Refrigerator in question purchased by the complainant was persuaded to be a perfect product. Installation of refrigerator took place at the premises of complainant, but one month after its purchase, the said refrigerator giving problem because it was not working properly. The refrigerator was not giving the due cooling and even freezing of ice not done properly and also giving noise/sound. Matter was reported to the officials of OPs, who started dilly-dallying the matter. OP1 is manufacturer, but OP2 is the service centre of OP1. It is claimed that the complainant visited service centre i.e. Op2 many times, but nothing needful was done. An engineer came to the premises of complainant and after inspecting the refrigerator, he disclosed that there is a manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. Complainant was assured that problem will be solved shortly, but nothing done despite that. The manufacturing defect in the refrigerator is alleged to be not curable. As defective refrigerator sold to the complainant and as such, same caused loss to him. Complainant made complaints vide complaint Nos.RNA160616053287 dated 16.6.2016 and RNP171229051410 dated 29.12.2017 and RNP180213092960 dated 30.02.2018. However, despite that no action has been taken on the said complaints till date. Legal notice dated 27.4.2018 even was sent to Ops for calling upon them to do the needful within 15 days from the service of said notice, but nothing has been done and as such, by claiming that Ops provided deficient services, which cause mental harassment and agony to the complainant, this complaint filed for seeking refund of price amount of refrigerator along with compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2 lac.

2.                 Arguments at the admission stage were heard.

3.                 After going through the contents of complaint and submitted documents i.e. retail invoice, it is made out that refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant from OP3 on 3.11.2015. Further, as per contents of affidavit and para no.4 of complaint, defects in the refrigerator in question erupted after one month of its purchase. So, contents of complaint and affidavit read as a whole, then the same leave no manner of doubt that complainant got knowledge of defects of non-cooling or non freezing of ice or of eruption of noise of sound in December 2015. So, cause of action accrued to the complainant qua filing of his complaint w.e.f. December 2015, but this complaint filed on 30.05.2018 i.e. after lapse of period of more than 2 years and 5 months of accrual of cause of action.

4.                 Date of reporting of matter to OPs or its officials regarding defects not specified in the complaint and nor its dates of visits to service centre i.e. OP2 or OP3 specifically mentioned in the complaint. However, it is only mentioned in para no.6 and 7 of complaint that manufacturing defect in the refrigerator is there. The date of which, the knowledge of this manufacturing defect got by the complainant even is not specified at all in the complaint or in the supporting affidavit. Even it is not mentioned in affidavit or in the complaint as to when the complainant got knowledge regarding manufacturing defect become not curable. If manufacturing defects are actually not curable as claimed by the complainant, then he must have got knowledge of a particular date about that. Despite that the said date of incurable manufacturing defect is not specified in the complaint, so virtually the complaint is filed by concealing the material facts regarding the knowledge of complainant of manufacturing defects or of dates of visits to the service centre or of date of inspection of the refrigerator by the engineer of OPs.

5.                 A consumer complaint can be filed within two years of accrual of cause of action as per Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that District Forum or State Commission or  National Commission shall not admits the complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date, of which, cause of action has arisen. However, on showing sufficiency of cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period of two years, complaint can be entertained for reasons to be recorded. As complainant has not suffered any sufficient explanation for not filing the complaint within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and as such, complaint being filed beyond period of limitation of cause of action liable to be dismissed, being barred by limitation.

6.                 As a cause of action accrued to the complainant for filing the complaint on getting knowledge of manufacturing defects or when he got knowledge of cooling problem or sound problem in December 2015, but despite that complaint is not filed within two years from December 2015 and as such certainly complaint is barred by limitation.

7.                 Though, complainant in para no.8 of complaint has mentioned the complaint numbers with dates of filing of complaints, but no copies of those complaint has been filed and nor even specified as to whether those complaints were sent through registered post or through email or through SMS or through any other kind of mode of communication. Had really the complaints mentioned in para no.8 of complaint would have been sent by the complaint, then copies of same would have been produced on record. However, those copies of the same have not been produced and as such, the vague explanation given in para no.8 of complaint will not extend the period of limitation for filing the complaint because it is well settled that if period of limitation once start running, then the same will not stopped. So, submission advanced by counsel for complainant has no force that in view of filing of complaints on 16.6.2016, 29.12.2017 and 30.2.2018, the period of limitation stands extended.

8.                 Service of legal notice dated 27.04.2018 even will not extend the period of limitation because the limitation for filing complaint was December 2017 because knowledge of refrigerator got by the complainant in December 2015.

9.                As a sequel of the above discussion, there is no escape from conclusion that complaint is being barred by limitation, merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. 

10.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                    (Vinod Gulati)                                (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                           President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:11.06.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.