Signing you in

President Priya S and member V Balakrishnan of the Kozhikode District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that after spending a “big” amount on the appliance, the consumer could not have expected such a “short life” for the “usage” of the refrigerator.

“So we are of the view that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in arranging the repair work in time, and the complainant was forced to abandon the product after 7 years of purchase. For the hardship and mental agony suffered due to the negligent action in repairing, by the opposite parties, the complainant is to be properly compensated,” the June 30 order read.

Santhosh claimed that he purchased an LG refrigerator on July 22, 2015. He added that at the time of purchase, the representatives of the electronics company made him believe that the refrigerator was in excellent working condition and came with a 10-year service warranty.

However, while using the refrigerator, it became defective, and the motherboard stopped working after seven years. He added that there was no positive attempt from the company or its centre to get it repaired.

Aggrieved by the same, the man moved the commission seeking compensation, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of LG Electronics.

The complainant’s main allegation was that the defect was noticed within the warranty period. He also claimed that the refrigerator had manufacturing defects, so the company was liable to replace it or refund its price.

The dealer, represented by advocate Pavithran K, submitted that the bill and the warranty card were handed over to the man on the day of installation of the said refrigerator. It was added that the company issues the warranty, and they have to be contacted to repair the product.

They added that they have only sales and marketing staff, and there is no technical staff for repairs attached to them. It was added that on hearing the complaint, they informed the man to contact the manufacturing company and the addresses of the service centre and the manufacturing company were handed over to him.

They added that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part and sought the dismissal of the complaint.

The commission held that it was the duty of the dealer, authorised service centre and manufacturer to initiate repair work after procuring the necessary spare parts, particularly since the warranty terms contemplated repairs through dealers or authorised service centres.

It further observed that the company and the authorised service centre failed to file their versions within time and were proceeded against ex parte. Finding deficiency in service in the company’s failure to arrange timely repairs, the forum directed all three parties (company, authorised service centre and dealer) to jointly and severally pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to the complainant.

The ruling highlights that electronics companies cannot get rid of their liability after promising a warranty and can be held liable for deficiency of service if they fail to repair the item or address the grievance of the consumer.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.