Onus On Complainant To Prove Allegations Of Deficiency In Service: Uttarakhand State Commission Overturns Lower Commission's Order Against LG Electronics

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant purchased an 8 kg LG washing machine from BEHL Agencies/dealer for Rs. 50,000. From the beginning, the machine did not function properly. The complainant lodged a complaint with the dealer, who suggested contacting the LG service centre. Despite multiple visits to the service centre, the problem persisted. In February, a mechanic attempted to repair the machine, claiming to have fixed the issue. However, the next day, the machine started making loud noises again. The complainant repeatedly informed the service centre about the unresolved issue, but they ignored the complaints. Even contacting an official from the service centre in Dehradun yielded no results. Since the machine was under warranty, it was the responsibility of the dealer and service centre to either repair or replace it. The complainant sent a legal notice through their lawyer, but no action was taken. Consequently, the consumer complaint was filed with the District Commission, which allowed the complaint. It directed the service centre and the dealer to refund the price of the washing machine amounting to Rs. 50,000 and pay Rs. 5,000 towards compensation and litigation costs. Consequently, the service centre appealed before the State Commission of Uttarakhand.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The service centre contended that the District Commission's order was illegal as the parties had not been given an opportunity to be heard. It was also argued that the complainant had submitted the purchase bill for sum of Rs. 43,000, whereas in the consumer complaint, it was alleged that the subject machine was purchased for Rs. 50,000 which created doubt about the genuineness of the bill. The opposite party denied any deficiency in service on their part.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission observed that the complainant admitted to filing a complaint claiming the washing machine's cost as ₹50,000. However, the submitted bill showed ₹50,000 written over a corrected amount of ₹43,000, and the date was altered. The complainant failed to explain the changes or justify the claim of ₹50,000, casting doubt on the authenticity of the bill. Additionally, the complainant did not provide an expert report to prove any manufacturing defect in the washing machine or a job card to support the claim of repairs by the service centre. Without such evidence, there was no basis for directing a refund. The Commission found the District Commission's decision flawed, lacking proper consideration and legal justification. It ruled that the complainant could not prove any service deficiency by the dealer or service centre. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the District Commission's orders were set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. The deposited amount was ordered to be released to the opposite parties.

Case Title: LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Bhushan Malhotra

Case Number: F.A. No. 172/2019

Click Here To Read/Download The Order