Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/353/2024

NARESH KUMAR DHURIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mehr Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/353/2024
Date of Institution	:	24.07.2024
Date of Decision	:	02.12.2024

 

Naresh Kumar Dhuria s/o Late Lahori Ram Dhuria, R/o H.No.152, Mayur Vihar Society, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh 160047

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     Mehr Electronics, SCO 373, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh through its owner.

2]     LG India Privar Limited, Plot NO.51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Geater Noida 201306 (Near Udyog Vihar), India through its MD

3]     LG India Private Limited,C0001, K P Tower, Sector 16-B, Noida U.P. through its CEO

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY

:

Ms.Prem Lata Dhuria, Authorized Representative of Complainant Sh.Arjun Grover, Adv. for OPs (thr. VC) (OPs exparte)

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Mr.Naresh Kumar Dhuria, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 15.2.2019 the complainant purchased LG Refrigerator (hereinafter referred to as the subject product) against the Invoice dated 15.2.2019 on payment of Rs.39,500/- having warranty of 1 year of the refrigerator and ten years warranty for the compressor. The copy of the invoice is annexed as Ex.C-1.  From the very beginning, the subject product was having problem of cooling regarding which the issue was raised by the complainant with OP No.1.  Thereafter, OP NO.1 deputed his employee to check the position of refrigerator, which was found correct on the spot but the matter was lingered on by the OP No.1 on lame excuses.  Thereafter when the dealer – OP No.1 has not taken any action, the complainant lodged the complaint with respect to malfunctioning of the subject product with the OPs in June, 2022.  When nothing was done by the OPs, the complainant raised the issue with Higher Authorities and after follow up, the compressor of the subject product was replaced on 19.6.2022.  However, the OPs had not issued any document to the complainant indicating that new compressor has been replaced with old one as the subject product was under warranty.  Again on 29.3.2023 the refrigerator stopped working and complaint was raised by the complainant with the OPs.  Thereafter the OPs No.2 & 3 had deputed one Engineer to check the product and it was found by the Engineer that the compressor of the refrigerator had stopped working. Thereafter the complaint raised the matter by lodging Online complaint on website in the MD Office of OPs on 20.5.2024 regarding replacing of the refrigerator.  After about 1 year, the OPs had sent their Engineer and again the compressor was replaced on 30.5.2024 after repeated requests made by the complainant to the OPs.  However again no document has been given to the complainant indicting that the new compressor of the subject product has been replaced with the old one.  In this manner as the subject product is having manufacturing defect and the OPs have not replaced the same with new one, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, as a result of which, the complainant had suffered harassment, mental torture and hence the complainant is entitled to get the subject product replaced with new one as the same is within the warranty period.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 06.09.2024.

2. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that the complainant  has purchased the subject product from the OP No.1 on 15.2.2019 vide Invoice Ex.C-1 and the subject product was having warranty of 1 year on the complete product whereas 10 years warranty for the compressor and the subject product started malfunctioning after few months of the purchase, as a result of which the compressor was replaced twice by the OPs, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
   2. Perusal of Ex.C-1 clearly indicates that the OP No.1 had sold the subject product to the complainant on 15.2.2019.  Ex.C-2 to C-5 which are the copies of mails & messages and the service information with respect to the subject product, having been raised by the complainant with the OPs, making clear that the OPs had replaced the compressor of the subject product twice.  However, the complainant has failed to prove on record any expert report indicating that the except the compressor any other defect was found in the subject product while removing the defect with respect to the compressor in the subject product. 
   3.  As it is an admitted case of the complainant that there was warranty of 1 years on the whole of the subject product and the complainant has failed to prove on record if there was any manufacturing defect in the complete product except that of the compressor of the subject product having problem and the same was replaced by the OPs twice, to our mind, the complainant is not entitled for the replacement of the subject product especially when the warranty of 1 year on the subject product has already expired.
   4. As it has come on record that the OPs have not issued any document to the complainant with respect to the compressor which was replaced by them twice and the same was having warranty of 10 years, indicating that the compressor of the LG Company has been replaced with old one, to our mind, the aforesaid act of the OPs certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the complainant is entitled for relief to that extent along with compensation from the OPs, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint partly deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs No.1 to 3 are directed as under :-

1. to issue a proper invoice with respect to the compressor replaced by them with the old one of the subject product of the complainant
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 24.07.2024 till onwards.

 

5. This order be complied with by the OPs NO.1 to 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No. (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i) above.
6.        Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7.        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

                                                        Sd/-

Announced 2.12.2024om			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member