L G Electronics India P Ltd vs JAGRUT NAGRIK

AS delay has been condoned in CMA No. 176/2005 this appeal has been given number and the same is taken up for admission.

WE have heard the learned Advocate for the original opponent No. 2 who has filed this appeal. We have gone through the impugned order. It would appear that the complainant No. 2 purchased LG Frost Free Refrigerator Model No. GR -412 on 5.1.1999 for Rs. 33,400/ -. It was the complainants grievance that the refrigerator was not at all working right from the inception and repeated complaints were made to the opponents. On 28.4.1999 the opponents replaced the compressor which had burnt. Once again the refrigerator was not working resulting into repeated complaints being made to the opponents. Once again compressor was required to be changed on 8.3.2000. The show was repeated and the compressor was once again replaced on 10.10.2000. The exercise met with the same fate and the refrigerator stopped working totally on 3.6.2001. Once again it was attended to but of no better result and the refrigerator stopped working on 7.9.2002. Once again on 29.9.2002 the compressor was changed. The refrigerator was repaired finally on 5.10.2002 but it stopped working within two hours. The Engineer of the opponent informed that the filters of the refrigerator were choked and it was taken to the workshop of the opponents on 9.10.2002. Thus it was the complainants grievance that the refrigerator in question was totally defective right from its manufacture. Letter dated 12th October, 2002 was written for replacement of the refrigerator but of no consequence. The complainant, therefore, filed complaint before the learned Forum and yet there was no response from the opponent. No one appeared before the learned Forum. Hence the learned Forum had no alternative except to grant the prayer in the complaint directing the opponents to refund the amount of the refrigerator by taking the refrigerator back and to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.1.1999 till payment and compensation and cost respectively in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ - and Rs. 1,000/ -.

LEARNED Advocate for the appellant (original opponent No. 2) would first submit that the complaint was barred by limitation. According to him the warranty of replacement of the whole refrigerator was for a year starting on or around 5.1.1999 and, therefore, the complaint filed on 24.12.2003 would be barred by limitation. In our considered opinion there is no substance in this submission inasmuch as if the exercise undertaken by the opponents as noted hereinabove is taken into consideration the complaint was filed well within the period of limitation as the cause of action started from 9th October, 2002. It is not in dispute that there were repeated exercise made for repair of the refrigerator by replacing the compressor time and often. There was no fun in replacing the compressor as replacement of the compressor did not rectify the refrigerator itself. Hence the cause of action in fact started on 9th October, 2002 when the refrigerator was taken for repairs by the opponent and could not be repaired same. The history about repair exercise as made by the opponent would indicate that there was major defect in the manufacturing of the refrigerator. Complaint was filed within two years from 9.10.2002 and, therefore, it was well within the period of limitation. There is, thus, no substance in the defence that complaint was filed after expiry of the period of limitation.

IT has then been submitted on behalf of the appellant that no expert opinion has been produced by the complainant before the learned Forum in order to show manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question. A consumer can show manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by him either by producing expert opinion or by showing the circumstances from which it can be inferred that there is no other defect except manufacturing defect. This is one such case where the opponent having failed repeatedly to repair the refrigerator in question it certainly contained manufacturing defect which was not detected and which could not be rectified either by repeated replacement of the compressor or by making exercise of repairing it time and often. Hence no indulgence is required to be shown in the present appeal on this ground also. In view of what is stated above we do not propose to admit this appeal. The same is hereby rejected at the admission stage. Appeal dismissed.