Haryana

Panchkula

CC/472/2021

SANTOSH SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AMBIKA TRADING COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	472 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	18.11.2021
Date of Decision	:	13.09.2023

 

Santosh Sharma wife of Sh. Ram Avtar aged 69 years, # 1865, Ground Floor, Sector-26, Panchkula.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     M/s Ambika Trading Company, Ground Floor, SCO No.-42, Sector-      11, Panchkula through its Prop/Owner/Partner.

2.     Authorised Service Centre L.G. Electronic India Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.     367, Fatehpur, 1^st Floor, Sector-20, Panchkula through its       incharge.

3.     L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. A-24/6, Mohan Cooperative        Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its   M.D. 

                                                                         ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

 

For the Parties:    Sh.Ram Avtar Mehta, Authorised Representative for   complainant.

                         Sh. Arjun Grover, Advocate for OPs No.1 to 3.

 

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.The brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant had purchased  a refrigerator no.LG REFGL-T302SDS3, ADSZEBN, 007NRCQ125499 Make L.G. code 8418 for a sum of Rs. 28,200/- from the OP No.1 through bill/invoice no.56 dated 27.01.2021. It is stated that the OP no.1 is dealer; OP No.2 is authorized service centre and OP no.3 is manufacturer of the product in question. At the time of purchase of above product, the Ops had given fully warranty and guaranty of 7 years. It is stated that there was problem of low cooling in the said refrigerator since its purchase and its working was not proper. After the first service of the refrigerator, its compressor had started causing the noise. A complaint was lodged on the toll free nos. V30361/ 04462 and RNP-211019026202. The OP’s representative visited the house of the complainant but made a temporary arrangement. On 28.10.2021, a written complaint was made to OP no.2 requesting for replacement of the defective parts of the refrigerator. On 10.11.2021, again another written complaint was made to the OP no.2 but the defects in the refrigerator were not rectified. On 12.11.2021, service engineer of OPs had visited the house of the complainant and upon inspection of the refrigerator, the compressor was found defective, about which he made the remarks in the job-sheet as “compressor sound problem”. It is stated that the refrigerator is in lying dead condition and there are manufacturing defects in it. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the OPs No.1 to 3 has appeared through their counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not come with clean hands; there is no manufacturing defect in refrigerator as alleged. It is submitted that on 27.01.2021, the complainant had purchased one LG refrigerator for a sum of Rs.28,200/- from OP No.1.  It is stated that the complainant on 01.06.2021 contacted the OP company vide job-sheet bearing no.RNP210601047449 for some issues in the product. In response thereto, the OP Company immediately sent its service engineer at her residence in order to attend the problem qua refrigerator.  It is stated that, on the visit of the service engineer, it was diagnosed that door of the product needed some minor adjustments as door was loose. The service engineer immediately made the adjustment in the door of the product. Thereafter, the OP company again received the complaint vide jobsheet bearing no. RNP210716040050. In response thereto, the OP company immediately sent its service engineer at the house of the complainant and upon inspection, he diagnosed that the refrigerator required replacement of compressor; thereafter, service engineer with permission of the complainant replaced the compressor, which was done, free of cost. Thereafter, the product was found functioning properly and the same was also demonstrated to the complainant to her satisfaction.  It is stated that on 19.10.2021, the complainant once again contacted the OP company regarding some noise in the product. In response thereto, the OP company once again deputed its service engineer, who, while making minor functional adjustments i.e. level adjustment, once again demonstrated to the complainant that the product in question was functioning properly without producing any abnormal sound. It is stated that on 12.11.2021, the complainant once again contacted the OP company regarding some sound issues in the product. In response thereto, the OP company immediately sent its service engineer at the house of the complainant, who, upon inspection, found that the refrigerator was functioning properly and after that, the technical team of the OP company also found that there was no such issue as alleged in the product. It is submitted that the engineer had made the remarks as “the compressor sound problem” vide job sheet(Annexure C-5) mistakenly. The OP company i.e. LG. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. is a company of international repute and practices having high ethical policies and in no case, the company acts contrary to its policies. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the baseless and false assertions made therein by the complainant in the instant complaint. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.The authorized representative of the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs no.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A along with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant and the learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 and gone through the entire record available on file, minutely and carefully.

5. During arguments, the authorized representative on behalf of the complainant reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended that the OP’s had sold a defective refrigerator, having manufacturing defects in it, vide bill (Annexure C-1) and that the OP’s engineer/technical persons had failed to rectify those defects despite their repeated efforts and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by grating the relief as prayed for in the complaint.

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of OPs reiterated the averments as made in written statement as also in the affidavit(Annexure R-A) and contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question as alleged. It is contended that the complainant’s grievances were attended and addressed on every occasion as and when the same were conveyed to OP’s. It is vehemently contended that the refrigerator in question was found working properly by OP’s engineer and thus, no relief is liable to be given to the complainant; hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

7.Admittedly, the compressor of the refrigerator in question, which was purchased on 27.01.021, was necessitated to be replaced on 16.07.2021 vide job-sheet(Annexure R-3). Pertinently, the replacement of the compressor of the refrigerator, within such a short span of time from its purchase, clearly indicates towards the manufacturing defect in it. As per job-sheet dated 01.06.2021(Annexure R-2), no issue of low cooling as alleged was found by the OP’s engineer, namely, Sh. Abhishek Sharma but the “sound problem” in the compressor was reported by its engineer vide his remarks made in the job-sheet dated 02.12.2021(Annexure C-5). In this regard, the OPs have averred in para no.14 of preliminary objections of the written statement that the said remarks were made mistakenly by the engineer. However, no affidavit of the concerned engineer has been placed on record by OPs in support of their contentions that the remarks made by him were made mistakenly and due to inadvertence.It is the specific, consistent and categorical assertions of the complainant that the refrigerator in question is having manufacturing defect in it and in this regard, the complainant had lodged several complaints as mentioned above. In view of the several complaints lodged by the complainant qua cooling issue/sound problem in the refrigerator, it was imperative upon the OPs to get the same inspected through a team of highly qualified experts, having wide experience, so as to ascertain the real problem in the refrigerator as also to disprove the assertions of the complainant.

8.Pertinently, the OPs No.2 & 3, instead of getting the refrigerator in question checked and inspected from a team of highly qualified experts, having wide experience, had preferred to send some technical persons. Even the affidavits of said technical persons substantiating and corroborating, the contentions and assertions of the OPs have not been placed on record. In such circumstances, we find force and substance in the contentions of the complainant that the refrigerator in question is having defect in it, which the OPs have failed to rectify the same and accordingly, the OPs No.2 & 3, jointly and severally, are held deficient while rendering services to the complainant. The present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.1.

9.Coming to the relief, it is found that the complainant has prayed for refund of the purchase price of refrigerator i.e. Rs.28,200/- with interest. Further, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.11,000/- have also been claimed on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigation charges.

10.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.2 & 3:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.28,200/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum(s.i.) w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization subject to return of the refrigerator to OPs, who shall get the same collected from the complainant.
2. To pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

 

11. The OPs No.2 & 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.2 & 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 13.09.2023

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President

 

CC.472 of 2021

Present:              Sh.Ram Avtar Mehta, Authorised Representative for   the complainant.

                         Sh. Arjun Grover,  Advocate for OPs No.1 to 3.

                                                 

 

                       Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 13.09.2023 for orders.

Dt.05.09.2023

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President

 

Present:              Sh.Ram Avtar Mehta, Authorised Representative for   the complainant.

                         Sh. Arjun Grover, Advocate for OPs No.1 to 3.

                         

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby dismissed against OP No.1 and is hereby partly allowed against OPs No.2 & 3 with costs.

                         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.13.09.2023

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President