Orissa

Cuttak

CC/159/2022

Soumya Prava Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head of customer care service,Panasonic Smart Factory Solutions India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Sahu & associates

09 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.159/2022

 

Soumya Prava Nath,

W/O: Jyoti Ranjan Behera,

At:Qr, No.E-1/5,High Court Colony,

P.O:ArunodayaNagar,Link Road,

Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.                                                                 ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.     Panasonic Smart Factory Solutions India,

(DivisiuonCompay of Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.)

12^thfloor,Amblence Tower 1,Amblence Island.

H.H-8,Gurgaon,Haryana,India

Represented through its Head of Customer Care Service.

 

2. Consulting Rooms Private Limited,

InstrakartServicesPpvt. Ltd.,Bagan, N.H-16,

Village:TenpurNabsan&Hijlok,P.O/P.S:Began,

Dist:Howrah,Kolkata,West Bengal-711303,India.

 

3. Flipkart India Private Limited,

Vaishnavi Ummit, Ground floor,7^th Main,

80 feetRoad, 3^rdBlock,Koramangala Industrial Lay Out,

Bengaluru,Karnatak-560034,India.                                    … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     03.08.2022

Date of Order:    09.12.2022

 

For the complainants:          Mr. R.K.Sahu,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps1 &  2    :           None.

For the O.P no.3:                    Mr.S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.                                                           

               Case of the complainant in short is that on 1.4.2022 he had purchased a “Panasonic 1.5 ton, 3 star Split Inverter A.C withWi-FiConnect-White”bearing model No.ACNGB9GHXHMBGBTH and IMEI No.223PRJDVWU00466from the O.P no.2  on payment of Rs.35,990/- through Flipkart online marketing system (O.P no.3). The said A.C machine was delivered to the complainant on 3.4.2022 through O.P No.3.There was warranty of one year for comprehensive, four years on PCB and 9 years on compressor on the said A.C.  The further case of the complainant is that the A.C, machine was installed by the staff of the O.P no.1 .  The said A.C. machine was functioning smoothly upto 7.5.2022 but from 8.5.2022 the said A.C machine was not functioning properly for which the room was not cooling.  Due to such defect in the A.C machine, the husband of the complainant contacted the O.P no.1 through his Customer Care mobile number.  The said Customer Care Centre provided job I.D bearing No.RO8052217632398.  But the O.P no.1 did not rectify the defect.  Thereafter,inspite of repeated requests by the complainant, the O.P no.1 did not rectify the defect of her A.C. machine.  Lastly, the complainant sent advocate’s notice to the O.P no.1 to 3 for exchange of the A.C. machine.  All the O.Ps though had received notices but they did not respond.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.1,40,990/- which includes cost of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs.35,990/-.

               The complainant in order to prove her case has filed copies of some documents.

2.            Out of the three O.Ps, only O.P no.3 has appeared but none of the O.ps have filed their written version.  Hence all the O.Ps are set exparte.  The O.P no.3 has participated in the hearing of the case.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  and if they had practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Point no.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

   Admittedly, the complainant on 1.4.2022 had purchased one “Panasonic 1.5 ton three star Split Inverter A.C with Wi-FI Connect-White” AirConditioner bearing model No.ACNGB9GHXHMBGBTH and IMEI No.223PRJDVWU00466from on payment of Rs.35,990/- from the O.P no.2 through the O.P no.3 online market place.  The said A.C. was manufactured by the O.P no.1.  According to the complainant the said A.C. was delivered to her on 3.4.22 and that was installed by the staff of the O.P no.1.  But since 8.5.2022 the said A.C. is not functioning properly and the room is not becoming cool.  The complainant lodged the complaint before the Customer Care centre of the O.P no.1 for removal of the defect in her A.C machine but O.P no.1 did not rectify the said A.C machine with some pretext or other.  Thereafter, the complainant sent advocate’s notice to all the O.Ps for redressal of her grievances but none of the O.Ps responded to such notice.  There was warranty to the A.C. machine for one year and the said A.C became defective within the said warranty period.  Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps by not removing the defect of the A.C machine.  The O.P no.3 cannot escape by simply submitting that he is only online service provider and market entity and has no role here in this case is not hold good as his duty is to supervise and ensure that the consumer is not to be harassed by any way.  Accordingly, this Commission has no hesitation here to conclude that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and they have indeed practised unfair trade here in this case.  Hence this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Points no.i& iii.

               From the above discussions and from the materials as available in the case record, this Commission finds that the case of the complainant is maintainable.    Accordingly, it is held that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                   ORDER

The case is allowed exparteagainst all the O.Ps. All the O.Psare found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Hence, all the O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.35,990/-,the cost of the A.C. machine to the complainant  alongwith interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 8.5.2022 till the final payment is made.   The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony of the complainant and Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation cost to the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 9^th day of December,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                                Member

 

                                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President