STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/16/436 D PRAMOD KUMAR PRESENT ADDRESS - TC 6/1464 VANCHIPALAM SHARON KIDAYIKONAM THURUVICKAL PO TRIVANDRUM 695011 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR LG ELECTRONICS INDIA Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - A WING THIRD FLOOR D3 DISTRICT CENTRE SAKET NEW DELHI PIN 110017 ,KERALA.

THE MANAGER APPOLO SYSTEM PRESENT ADDRESS - TC 21/121-1 KARAMANA PO TRIVANDRUM PIN 695002 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 05/02/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.436/2016 JUDGEMENT DATED : 05.02.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.90/2015 on the file of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

D. Pramodkumar, S/o V. Divakara Prabhu, T.C.6/1464, Vachipalam, Sharon, Kidayilkonam, Thuruvickal P.O., Trivandrum – 695 011 (by Adv. Suresh Kumar C.R.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

rd

1. Managing Director, LG Electronics India Ltd., A Wing, 3 Floor, D3, District Centre, SAKET New Delhi – 110 017 (by Advs. Jaideep G. Nair & Arun G.)

2. The Manager, Appolo System, T.C.21/121-1, Karamana P.O., Trivandrum – 695 002

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the complainant in C.C.No.90/2015 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (the District Commission for short).

2. On 29.02.2016, the complaint was dismissed by the District Commission.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.

3. The opposite parties are the Managing Director of LG Electronics and the Manager of Appollo Systems. The complainant would allege that he had purchased a st washing machine manufactured by the 1 opposite party from Aswani Electronics, Kanpur. The washing machine became defective and on 17.11.2014, the complainant had reported nd nd this matter to the 2 opposite party. On 18.11.2014 a representative of the 2 opposite party had taken the washing machine to the service centre on 22.11.2014. On 28.11.2014 the washing machine was returned to the complainant by charging an amount of Rs.1,774/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Four only) and an additional amount of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) for transportation.

4. The complainant realised that the washing machine was returned without effecting any repair. So on 29.11.2014 he had lodged another complaint. Subsequently, the nd

2 opposite party had sent their representative to change the suspension of the washing machine by charging a sum of Rs.629/-(Rupees Six Hundred and Twenty Nine only). But the defect continued. So the complainant had reported the matter to the tollfree number of the opposite party on 07.01.2015. On 09.01.2015 another technician had visited the house of st the complainant and assured that the complaint will be resolved within one week. The 1 opposite party had demanded the washing machine to be transported to their service centre for effecting the service. On 22.01.2015 another person had attended the washing machine but brought another suspension and replaced the same, since the suspension already replaced was not a proper one.

st

5. On 29.01.2015 the complainant had contacted the 1 opposite party and on st

06.02.2015 the 1 opposite party had requested the complainant to bring the washing nd machine to the 2 opposite party for replacing the clutch. On 13.02.2015 the LG customer care Manager assured that they will look into the matter and finally on 16.02.2015 the washing machine was delivered and the opposite party had demanded Rs1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) for transportation. None of the replaced parts were handed over to the complainant and the bills generated by the o