Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1049/2019

G.L. Gulati - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG through LGEIL - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Sharma

09 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

G.L.Gulati aged 71 years, S/o Late Sh.Ram Krishan Gulati resident of House No.750, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

Email:- Poonam121411@gamil.com.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. LG through LGEIL Chandigarh Direct Service Plot No.57, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh City, PIN: 160002 Email:
2. Electronic Centre, SCO 307FF Sector 35B, Chandigarh Email:

… Opposite Parties

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant had purchased one side by side door fridge LG REF for Rs.71,300/- on 30.05.2013 from OP No.2. Copy of the bill is exhibited as Exhibit C-1. Photograph of the product showing 10 years warranty is exhibited as Exhibit C-2. After a year of purchase, refrigerator started showing snags as cooling was not up to the level as freezer was taking too much time for freezing ice etc. As per complainant, it created so much noise as equivalent to a generator and suddenly after 5-10 minutes the same faded. The complainant informed Opposite Party No.2 regarding the noise and diminishing cooling of the product on which Opposite Party No.2 assured complainant that the refrigerator would be replaced by LG as the same is in warranty period. The fridge which was purchased in 2013 got its compressor changed in 2018 within 5 years though it was having persistent problem in cooling and freezing but food etc. contained in the fridge got spoiled in winters in December 2017. It stands crystal clear that the product in issue was having manufacturing defect. The assurance given by the engineers of LG after repairing the refrigerator, complainant using the same but to their shock within a week of the aforesaid repair cooling and freezing got diminished to zero and water started coming out of fridge. On complainant concurrence and on LG’s assurance on such replacement the product will be restored, such repair was conducted on 20.07.2018 and amount of Rs.4026/- was charged by Opposite Party No.1. Copy of job sheets is exhibited as Exhibit C-3. Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint. In the present case, the complainant after using the refrigerator for 5 years, contacted the Opposite Party-Company for the first time on 23.06.2018, regarding cooling issue in the product. The Opposite Party-Company immediately deputed its service engineer in order to facilitate complainant. The service engineer diagnosed that the compressor of the product needs replacement and the service engineer replaced the compressor free of cost and thereafter the refrigerator was functioning perfectly and the same was also demonstrated to the complainant. The copy of job sheet to which the complainant signed is annexed as Annexure C-3 Colly. The complainant once again contacted to Opposite Party-Company regarding an issue in the product. The service engineer diagnosed that the evaporator regulator/controller assembly needs replacement. The service engineer apprised the complainant that the replacement/ repairs would be done on chargeable basis as 1 year comprehensive warranty had been expired. On the approval of the complainant, the part was replaced with a new one and the product had been functioning perfectly. After 7 months, i.e. on 13.03.2019, the complainant contacted the Opposite Party-Company regarding the same cooling issue. The service engineer thoroughly inspected the product and diagnosed that the gas charging is to be done. On 14.03.2019 the service engineer charged the gas free of cost and after that the product was functioning perfectly and there was no cooling problem in the product. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the Opposite Parties.
3.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.     On perusal of Exhibit C-1, it is observed that the refrigerator is purchased from the Opposite Party No.2 on payment of an amount of Rs.71,300/-. On perusal of Exhibit C-2, it is observed that the compressor of the refrigerator is carrying a warranty of 10 years. The OP's has taken a stand that the refrigerator was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant, as and when it was not giving effective cooling.
6.     The Opposite Parties have also mentioned that on two occasions the compressor was replaced & gas was filled. We have also perused para 11 of the preliminary submissions of the OP's wherein it is mentioned that an Engineer of the company visited the complainant’s refrigerator on 28.09.2019 (i.e. after around 6½ years of purchase) and found that there was leakage of the side condenser pipe, due to which rust has taken place and the same is not repairable and suggested to the complainant to take 15% of the invoice value as per depreciation policy of the Opposite Party-Company. We are not very convinced with this logic of the OP's. When the Opposite Parties have given warranty of 10 years for the proper functioning of the compressor free of cost, then it is expected that the refrigerator’s other parts also shall be functional, or shall be repairable on payment basis as other parts carry warranty for one year only. The Opposite Party is expected to retain the spare parts or is expected to repair the product on payment basis, till the period of 10 years, i.e., warranty of the compressor is over. The complainant has invested his hard earned money towards the purchase of the refrigerator in question for his comfort/ease, on the belief that the refrigerator shall be functional at least for 10 years. Even he was prepared to bear the cost towards repair of the product, in question, but not for inviting trouble after purchase or for losing his peace of mind. In the instant case the refrigerator started giving problem after 5 years of purchase and after 6½ years, the refrigerator has been declared beyond repairs, by the OP's where in it was expected to function free of trouble for at least 10 years, when there are some parts installed in the refrigerator which carry 10 years warranty.

         No useful purchase purpose shall be served for those parts, which are carrying a warranty of 10 years, when the refrigerator has been declared beyond repair, after 6½ years and the complainant is being forced to accept the depreciated cost. The Opposite Parties have failed to adduce any documentary evidence, that the complainant was made aware of the depreciation policy at the time of purchase of refrigerator. Hence we are of the view that the Opposite Parties have indulged in unfair trade practice and are deficient in providing service. The complainant has been made to run from pillar to post and finally dragged to this Commission for redressal of his grievance, which has caused him mental agony & harassment.

7.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund an amount of ₹35,650/- (50% of the purchase price of the refrigerator) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of declaring of refrigerator as beyond repair.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

8.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
9.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.