State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, Lg Electronics India Pvt. ... vs D.N. Khandanga, on 30 September, 2022
Sl. No. note as to action (if any),
of Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
taken on Order
ITI] S SALC OMMI S S I ON,ODI S I,IA,
CTJl'IACK
First Appeal No.9l 6/2012
(From an order dated 13.ir*2012 by the
District Consumer Disputcs ltcdressa Forum,
Rayagada in Consulncr Cornplaint N .27t2012)
1- Ihe anager, L.G.Electronics India
Pvt. Ltd. lot No.02, Bapuji Nagar,
ar-7 51009
r)
M/s.L.G lectronics(India) Pvt. Ltcl.
Plot No. , Udyog VihaqSurajpur,
Kasana ) Greater Noida, Uttar
Pradesh. Appellants
-Vers S-
1- D. .Khandanga, Auto Nagar,
Near N. V, School,PO/Di st-Ray agada,
Odisha,
.)
Manager,
M/s. Besi Over Bridge,
P.O/Dist- .yagada,C)disha. ... Respondents
Counsel the Appellant- Suvendra Ku.Moha Associates.
Counsel the Respondents-
oGP-MP-CTCP (FS&CW) 2_1,CO,000_29_6_2020 Sl. No. Date of note as to action (if any), ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Order taken on Order Sl. No. note as to action (if any), of Order ORDER WITII SIGNATURE taken on Order F.A.9t6t20t2 3" r Il The case of the Complainant s that he rchased one L.G. Split Air Conditi on 03-05- 008 from ..D,_ Respondent No.l c payment f consideration, and received the serv manual warranty card along with the Air. itioner. ing the warranty period, the Air nditioner as provided with service at the doo p. On 27- 5-2011 the advocate for Cornplainant nd a legal tice to Cpposite Parlies allcging de t in A.C. Machine and there after on 3-02-2012 Complainanl llled the corrrplaint petiti be{bre the District Forum alleging delective g s with a prayer to replace the defective A.C. hine by a new rnachine and to arvard comp tion Rs. 20,0001- and Rs. 500/- towards litigati cost.
Appcllarrls No.l and 2 as ite Parties No.2 and 3 in forurn below appeared filed their prelirninary objection along with a written statemcnt and submitted that the is not rnaintainablc for nonjoinder of Authori Service center as a pa(y', who is an indepcndent cr-rtity, runs its business in its owr-r narnc and style, there is n<l cause of action to bring this present laint ocp-Mp-cTcp (FS&GW) 2_1,00,000_29_6_2020 Sl. No. Date of note as to action (if any), of . Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order against opp. party no.2 and 3, there is no specific prayer made in the complaint and the mplaint is merely field on the apprehe ofa manufacturing defect in alleged Air C itioner in d,ispute, the complaint is grossly barred by (+ limitation as the alleged Air Cond .ioner was purchased on 03-05-2008 and the com int is filed long after the expiry of One Year of rranty on Air Conditioner and no claim for servi is lodged during the first year of the warranty iod further sta fo{ng that the complaint is not on any ,8"' technical advice and further same not fulfill the ingredients of Sec. 13 and 14 of the Act to claim the reliefs against these appell ts/opposite partiesrfurther stating that the alleged fect in the Air Conditioner cannot be determin without propcr analysis or test of thc oods, the complainant may be directed to p the Air Conditioner in dispute betbre Ld. mission below, and the satne may be sent to a I ratory for proper analysis. It is further submitted y Ops that warranty is valid only in the of an Air nditioner duly installed by an autho person ly deputed through a service center not Sl. No. Date of ORDER WITH SIGNATURE note as to action (if any), of Order Order taken on Order
-3 tampered by any outside mechanics.
receipt of complaint, mechanic was deputed inspect the Air Air f'^-.li+i^- :.^ dispute r:--- to 6r'' Condition in andTffi',;i service if A' required. On inspection, by mechanic i is detected that the alleged Air Conditioner is pered with and opened by unauthorized persons.
his being a case of violation of terms of y (VOID- WARRANTY), the complainant offered service on payment of appropriate es, which he did not prefer as such this is not established case of deficiency in service or m ufacturing defect in Air Conditioner, and lants/O.Ps prayed lor dismissal of the complaint.
After hearing the pa the Forum/Comrnission below directed I oppo site Parties to replace the L.G. AIC Split) Set purchased by Complainant on 03-05-2 B frorn the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.23,7 001_ by a set up-
to-date rnodel with fresh warranty or in the alternativ e pay back his sum of Rs.23,7 I During the course of hearing the for Appellant submitted that in the ear 2012 Complain ant for the l', time complain to ocp-Mp-cTcp (Fs&cw) 2_1,N,OOO_29+2020 Sl. No. Office note as to action (if any), ORDER WITH SIGNATURE of taken on Order Consumer Commission a nding manufacturing defect in Air Condi The technical person deputed to i the Air Conditioner in dispute.
In support of his case Learned nsel for Appellant cited a decision reported in 20(2) CPR 566 (NC) where in Hon'ble National mission has held that, "Since no manufacturing defr . in the inverter has been proved and def-ective parls required replacement only alter the warranty period was over, the mpugned order can not be sustained and e are set aside"
We perused the DFR, appeal mo and found that the Complainant menti ed in the complaint petition that he purc the L.G. AC(Split) from Opposite Party No.1( e) on 03- 05-2008 but not mentioned the date of fect. The Advocate for Complainant wrote a I on 27-05- 011 i.e. after 3 years of purchase of AC to ite Parties stating that the AC w defective, being complaint OP No.1 deputed lce Sl. No. ORDER WITH SIGNATURE note as to action (if any), of Order taken on Order person for check up the AC. They re1 ired the AC machine but still the machine is not functioning properly. opposite parries b-JI\ ir Written version categorically stating that on i tion, it is detected that the alleged Air C itioner is tampered with and di-installed by thorized persons for the renovation of the hou This being a case of violation of terms of w (vorD- WARRAMTY), the complainant offered service on payment of appropriate c es, whiclr he did not prefer. We fbund as the 'anty period was over the appellant has rightl demanded service charges. There is no latches the part of appellant.
In view of such fact. we hold t the Forum below has illegally passed the im gned order which is liable to be set-aside.
As such, the impugned order s set-aside. Complaint petition is dismissed.
No cost.
rn.r.ffiat*,r (Member) ( S.L.Pattnaik) (Member) oGp-Mp-cTCp (FS&CW) 2_1,OO,OO(-i2}_6_2020 Sl. No. Date of Office note as to action (if any), ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Order taken on Order