PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 08/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Raghu Nandan Nayak,

S/O-Prahallad Nayak,

R/O-Pardhiapali, Po-Sankarma, PS-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768006,

Mob-8652035499.                                                         .……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Dash Enterprises,

Opp. of Jagannath Temple,

At/Po-Budharaja, Dist-Sambalpur

PIN-768004, Odisha.

2. Panasonic India Private Limited,

Represented through is Present Manish Sharma,

12^th floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, N.H.-8,

Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.                        ....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. N.K. Panda, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :-       Sri. P.K.Pradhan & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2                           :-       Sri. S.K. Mohanty & Associates

Date of Filing:17.01.2023,  Date of Hearing :21.08.2023  Date of Judgement : 17.10.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased an Panasonic Air-Conditioner (AC) from the OP No. 1 bearing Model No. CU-YU18UKYM Sr- 18cPRDAJCU00771 on dtd. 27.03.2022 and paid a total sum of Rs. 36,500/- for his house which cover a warranty   period of three Year.  The AC was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect, hence immediately after its installation in the house of the Complainant, it was found not cooling properly and it continued. The Complainant had reported the matter to the customer care of the Panasonic Company on dtd. 15.05.2022 with a registration No. R15052217689094 and thereafter the Engineer from the Company came and repaired the same. The company replied dtd. 21.05.2022 that kindly use the link given below to share your valuable feedback pertaining to call number R15052217689094 registered with us and gave the link.  After the Engineer of the OP/Company came to the house of the Complainant and repaired the AC but the same defect was again found after some days. The Complainant once again reported the matter to the customer care of the Panasonic company on dtd. 26.07.2022 vide Registration No. R26072218150204 and on dtd. 30.07.2022 the company replied through massage to the Complainant that “Your registered call bearing registration number R26072218150204 is pending for spare parts. We would request you to bear with us till the time we are arranging parts”. Basing on the complaint, the company took back the AC for repairing and after ten days returned back to the Complainant and thereafter the AC run for only two days.  The Complainant lodged complaint on dtd. 28.08.2022 vide complaint No. R28082218347257 and on 02.09.2022, the company replied that your service request has been cancelled due to reason “Customer Not Available/reachable”.  Thereafter the Complainant lodged a complaint once again and on dtd. 05.09.2022, the company replied and thereafter the company took the AC for 15 days to remove the defects and returned back the AC after some days but after using the AC for some days, the same problem arose.  The Complainant lodged complaint to the help line of the OPs and after 20 days the technician of the OPs replied that after checking by videography, the AC will be replaced but the AC was not replaced by the Ops. Hence this case.
2. The OP No. 1 has not submitted any version.

The Written Version of the OP No. 2 is that the Complainant purchased a Panasonic AC on 27.03.2022 for an amount of Rs. 36,500/- with a warranty of one year. On 15.05.2022 the Complainant registered first complaint on call with authorized service center of the OP No. 2. The service engineer visited the very same day and the unit was repaired to the satisfaction of the Complainant. On 26.07.2022, the Complainant registered second complaint on call. The service engineer visited same day and the unit was repaired to the satisfaction of the complaint. The service engineer replaced the condenser and gas charging was done free of charge. On 05.09.2022, the Complainant registered complaint on call with the Authorized Service Center of the OP No. 2. The service engineer visited on the very same day and again found same problem of gas leakage and cooling in the AC, the unit was repaired to the satisfaction of the complaint. Upon several inspection by the Authorized Service Engineer, no issue as alleged in the complaint was found. The Complainant’s AC was working in perfect condition as per the last service by the ASE of the OP NO. 2. However, the OP No. 2 is ready and willing to provide services or repair the Complainant’s AC, if required, as per the terms of warranty. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2.

3. From the repeated complaints and service of O.Ps it is found that the AC purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect from immediately after its installation in the house of the Complainant. However, the Authorized Service Engineer tried to solve the problem but could not solve the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period.

Accordingly issues are settled.

ISSUES

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the OPs?
2. Is there any deficiency in service of the OPs ?
3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OPs?

Issue No. 1  Is the Complainant a consumer of the OP?

The Complainant has purchased a Panasonic Air-Conditioner (AC)  of the OP No. 2 company from the OP No. 1 bearing Model No. CU-YU18UKYM Sr- 18cPRDAJCU00771 on dtd. 27.03.2022 and paid a total sum of Rs. 36,500/- . So the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs.

Issue No. 2   Is there any deficiency in service of the OPs?

The AC purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect from immediately after some days of its installation in the house of the Complainant and the OPs have not solved the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period. It is the duty of the OPs to solve the problem but they failed to do so. Hence the O.Ps are deficient in their service as the Complainant could not get the relief in time

Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OPs?

From all the facts of the parties, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition from the OPs.

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on merit. The O.P No 2 is directed to pay Rs. 36,500/- toward cost of the AC to the Complainant and return back the old AC from the Complainant. Further  both the OPs  are directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- each separately towards negligence, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 17^th day of Oct, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.