A district consumer commission in order has directed LG Electronics and others to replace the defective refrigerator or refund the money. LG and others instead of repairing the defect had offered the buyer 65% of the total purchase value or were willing to offer 45% depreciated value of the refrigerator instead of repairing it though it was under extended warranty.
Commission directs LG to pay ₹12,500 for mental agony, litigation
The company had stated that since over three years had passed, handling of electronic items was key for its functioning. The commission also directed ₹12,500 to be paid for mental agony and litigation cost.
The order dated January 13 (uploaded April 4) was passed by S S.Mhatre and M P Kasar, members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai on a complaint by Parel resident Gunvant Shinde against LG Authorised Centre, Sumaira Appliances Private Limited and L G Electronics India Limited with Sumaira being a dealer of the authorised centre and products.
Consumer noticed defects in refrigerator in 2018
In September 2014, Shinde purchased a refrigerator for₹38,500. Around 2017, he sought an extended warranty till 2019. In January 2018, some defects were noticed in the refrigerator and he filed a complaint. On inspection, the representatives of the authorised centre and the dealer found the refrigerator to not be in working condition. They said that they would inform the centre about it.
However, when the defect was not removed and there was no response, Shinde filed a consumer complaint. Opposite parties had stated that since three and a half years had passed and the functioning of an electronic product depends on its handling, an option of exchange or refund of the amount after depreciating 65 % of the amount of the old refrigerator was offered.
Representative found defect but did not repair: Commission
During the hearing, the commission observed that the authorised centre representative found a defect in the cooling system on a visit but did not repair the refrigerator despite the product being under warranty period.
Commission added, “The stand taken by the opposite parties is not justifiable and reasonable as extended warranty given to the product was till February 22, 2019. We reject the plea taken by the opposite parties.”
Stating that the opposite parties had indulged in deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, it directed that the order be complied in 30 days.
(To receive our E-paper on WhatsApp daily, please click here. To receive it on Telegram, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)
