Bengaluru District Commission Holds Croma And LG Liable For Failure To Replace Or Refund Defective Refrigerator
The Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Chadrashekar S. Noola and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Croma and LG liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to repair and replace the refrigerator purchased by the Complainant which had regular issues such...
The Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Chadrashekar S. Noola and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Croma and LG liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to repair and replace the refrigerator purchased by the Complainant which had regular issues such as food spoilage, foul odour, and black fungus formation.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased an LG Refrigerator, LG Washing Machine, and Amazon Alexa Speaker in EMI, amounting to Rs.42,392/- from Croma. However, to the Complainant's dismay, the fruits and vegetables stored in the refrigerator began to spoil rapidly, accompanied by the formation of black fungus and a foul odour emanating from the appliance. Despite repeated complaints to Croma and LG, the issue persisted. While LG promised to send a technician, the solutions provided by the technician were only temporary. Despite numerous pleas and communications with LG and Croma, the Complainant didn't receive a satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Croma and LG.
In response, Croma and LG contended that there was no deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practices on their part, as claimed by the Complainant. Instead, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, along with heavy costs.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission examined email and WhatsApp communications and noted that six Technicians from LG visited the Complainant's residence and attempted to address the issue. However, the Complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the service provided. The District Commission noted since the purchase of the product, the Complainant had continuously requested service due to issues such as food spoilage, foul odour, and black fungus formation, causing both mental and financial distress, especially considering the purchase was made on an EMI basis and the Complainant's wife was pregnant at the time. It held that the very purpose of purchasing the Refrigerator was undermined, leading to emotional distress for the Complainant. Therefore, the District Commission held LG and Croma liable for deficiency of service as defined under Section 2(11) and unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Therefore, the District Commission directed LG to refund the amount of Rs.18,190/- for the refrigerator to the Complainant, along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum. Additionally, the Complainant was directed to return the refrigerator to LG. Furthermore, the District Commission held Croma and LG jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.