BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM (CAMP SITTING AT PIRAVOM).

Date of filing : 20/02/2015

Date of Order : 17/08/2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 136/2015

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

1. A brief statement of the facts of this case is as follows :-

The complainant purchased a Panasonic Inverter A/c Unit from the 2^nd opposite party M/s. Money Mart on 22-05-2013 for Rs. 48,432/-. The A/c unit was provided with one year warranty. The A/c unit became non-functional on 20-11-2013 and even after repeated efforts by the technicians of the 1^st opposite party, the defect of the A/c unit could not be rectified. The above fact shows that the A/c unit is suffering from substantial manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant claimed that he is entitled to refund of the price of the A/c unit of Rs. 48,432/- with 12% interest. The complainant also claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the mental agony suffered and loss of the A/c facility for a long period. The complainant claimed refund of Rs. 2,500/- collected from him for gas changing during the warranty period ie. on 14-12-2012 along with costs.

2. Notices were issued to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and were served on them. Neither the opposite parties nor their representatives appeared before this Forum in response to the notices served on the opposite parties. Hence the counsel for the complainant was heard and this complaint is disposed off ex-parte.

3. The evidence in this case consisted of the documentary evidence furnished by the complainant marked as Exts. A1 to A3. The complainant adduced no oral evidence.

4. The main issues to be decided in this case re as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant has proved manufacturing defects in the Panasonic Inverter A/c unit purchased from the 2^nd opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the A/c unit?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 2,500/- collected towards repairing charges?

4. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by him?

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings?

5. Issue Nos. i. and ii. :- The complainant purchased a Panasonic inverter A/c unit from the 2^nd opposite party M/s. Money Mart on 22-05-2013 for Rs. 48,432/- as evidence by Ext. A1 retail invoice dated 02-05-2013. The 1^st opposite party Panasonic India had provided one year warranty to the product from the date of purchase. While so, the A/c unit became non-functional on 20-11-2013 and the 1^st opposite party manufacturer was informed the matter on 29-11-2013 and on 14-12-2013 the technician of the 1^st opposite party examined the A/c unit. They could not rectify the defect, but collected Rs. 2,500/- from the complainant for gas changing. Again, the complainant made another complaint on 09-01-2014 vide complaint No. # 077799. A technician attended to the above complaint and informed the complainant that the failure of the unit was due to voltage problem and advised the complainant to instal a stabilizer. Accordingly, a stabilizer was installed by the complainant, but no change noticed in the defective A/c unit. Therefore, the complainant registered another complaint on 09-07-2014 vide complaint No. # 042307. After examination of the A/c unit, a technician of the 1^st opposite party replaced the mother board of the A/c unit. But the A/c unit continued to be non-functional. Thereafter, the complainant made repeated requests for replacement of the defective A/c unit with a brand new one. But there was no response to those requests. However, the complainant again made another complaint vide complaint note No. # 031320 on 16-09-2014, but no action was taken by the 1^st opposite party. Subsequently, an e-mail complaint was also sent to the 1^st opposite party, but in vain. The complainant stated that the repeated efforts of the technicians of the 1^st opposite party during the warranty period and thereafter to rectify the defect of the A/c unit became unsuccessful and the above facts substantiate that the A/c unit supplied to the complainant is suffering from substantial manufacturing defect. We find that the A/c unit became non-functional on 20-11-2013 ie. during the warranty period. The defect of the A/c unit could not be rectified even after changing of the gas on 14-12-2013, installation of stabilizer in January 2014, during the warranty period. The defect continued beyond the warranty period, which ended on 21-05-2014. After the warranty period, the A/c unit was examined by the technician of the 1^st opposite party in pursuance of the complaint filed by the complainant on 09-07-2014. The mother board of the A/c unit was replaced by the technician, but he could not make good the A/c unit. Thereafter, another complaint was filed by the complainant vide complaint No. # 03/320 on 16-09-2014, but there was no response from the 1^st opposite party to that complaint. Thus, we find that the defect of the A/c unit commenced on 20-11-2013 ie. during the warranty period and the defect could not be rectified even after the warranty period. We find that these facts would go to show that the A/c unit supplied to the complainant is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant has proved beyond doubt that the A/c unit is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the A/c unit of Rs. 48,432/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from he date of purchase ie. from 22-05-2013 till realisation. Thus, the issues (i) and (ii) are decided in favour of the complainant.

6. Issue No. iii. :- The technician of the 1^st opposite party collected an amount of Rs. 2,500/- for gas changing on 14-12-2013 as evidenced by Ext. A2 issued by the service engineer of the 1^st opposite party. It is seen that the above amount is collected during the warranty period which started on 22-05-2013 and ended on 21-05-2014. We find that the above amount is collected while attempting to repair the A/c unit, is against the warranty conditions, and therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 2,500/- collected from the complainant during the warranty period.

7. Issue No. iv. :- The complainant claimed Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by him in pursuance of the non-function of the A/c unit from 20-11-2013 onwards. The complainant purchased the Panasonic Inverter A/c unit after spending an amount of Rs. 48,432/-. But he could enjoy the facility of the A/c unit only for 6 months and the 1^st opposite party could not rectify the defect of the A/c unit so far. In the circumstances, we find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the inconveniences caused to him. We fix the compensation amount at Rs. 15,000/-.

8. Issue No. v. :- We find that the complainant is unnecessarily dragged to this Forum to get his grievances redressed. Had the 1^st opposite party taken necessary steps to replace the defective A/c unit, this case would not have filed by the complainant. We find that the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows :-

1. The 1^st opposite party shall refund Rs. 48,432/- (Rupees Forty eight thousand four hundred and thirty two only) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22-05-2013 till realisation.

2. The 1^st opposite party shall also refund Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) collected from the complainant towards repairing charges during the warranty period.

3. The 1^st opposite party shall pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony suffered inconveniences caused to the complainant.

4. The 1^st opposite party shall pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of August 2015

Forwarded/By Order Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil