Failure To Repair ACs Within Warranty, Jaipur District Commission Holds LG, Its Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Nimal Sharma (Member) and Dr. Subesingh Yadav (President) held LG Electronics liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair the ACs sold to the Complainant which were within the warranty period. The bench directed LG to refund ₹ 28,950/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Nimal Sharma (Member) and Dr. Subesingh Yadav (President) held LG Electronics liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair the ACs sold to the Complainant which were within the warranty period. The bench directed LG to refund ₹ 28,950/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of ₹ 5,000 and ₹ 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
Mrs. Kamakshi (“Complainant”) purchased two split ACs from LG on 7th March 2018 from Great Eastern Retail Pvt. Ltd. (“Dealer”). The ACs came with a ten-year warranty. After installing the ACs, it started facing certain issues, prompting the Complainant to complain to LG's customer care. The complaint highlighted the non-functioning of the AC's outdoor unit. Despite multiple attempts to contact LG Jaipur Service Center at the provided number, no one visited the Complainant to resolve the issue. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against LG. LG and the Dealer didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that neither LG nor the Dealer provided any service to the Complainant as per the warranty, and it did not address the Complainant's issue. Further, it held that they were obligated to rectify the issues with ACs, but they failed to do so. Consequently, the District Commission held LG and the Dealer liable for deficiency in services.
The District Commission directed LG and the Dealer to refund the Complainant a sum of ₹ 28,950/-, along with 9% annual interest from the date of filing the complaint on 11th July 2022. Additionally, they were directed to pay a compensation of ₹ 5,000 to the Complainant for mental agony along with ₹ 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
Case Title: Kamakshi vs LG and Anr.
Case Number: C.C. No. 218/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: Shri Rakesh Shekhawat
Advocate for the Respondent: None (Ex-parte)