Order by:

Sh.Mohinder Singh Brar, Member

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that the complainant had purchased one Panasonic 1.5 Ton Split AC having model CS-KN18ZKY from opposite party No. 1 i.e. authorized agent/dealer of opposite parties No.2 which was manufactured by opposite party No.2, for consideration of Rs.40,000/- vide bill/invoice bearing No. 147 dated 05.06.2023. The said AC has been installed into the room of the complainant and outdoor unit of the said AC has been installed at outside of the room but from the date of its purchase and installation, the outdoor unit of the said AC did not work properly as there is a huge noise came from the outdoor unit and said outdoor unit of the AC vibrated upto the extant that noise of the same came into the room of the complainant and when the complainant asked about the same to opposite party No.1 then a person from the service center of the opposite party No.2 came to the house of the complainant and received Rs.700/- from the complainant to put the rubbers under the outdoor unit of said AC. Inspite of putting the rubbers under the outdoor unit of said AC, the problem was not solved then the person from service centre was again came to the house of the complainant and once again received an amount of Rs.1500/- for changing the place of outdoor unit, but even then the problem was not solved on which the complainant registered his complaint with the opposite party No.2 on which they asked the complainant to install the outdoor unit far away from the indoor unit and to install the outdoor unit far away from the indoor unit, the representative of the opposite party No.2 demanded an amount of Rs.4200/- from the complainant but has not given any assurance that problem will be solved and the opposite parties lingered on the matter with one pretext or the other and failed to solve the above said complaint of the complainant. Inspite of personal visits and calls by complainant, the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect of outdoor unit of the said AC. Alleged that the aforesaid act of opposite parties for not repairing the outdoor unit of the said AC is an act of deficiency in services, mal practices, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental tension and harassment besides financial loss to complainant. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the outdoor unit of the AC in question with new one or to refund  the amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of non-service/repair the outdoor unit of the said AC and for causing mental tension and harassment.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.5500/- as cost of complaint.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Party No.1 appeared in person and filed written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is legally not sustainable in the present form as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party; the Complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint against the answering Opposite Party. Averred that regarding the liability of Opposite Party No.1, as the complainant himself in his complaint that a person of Opposite Party No.2 came to his house and changed some parts of the product in question, but there is no allegation of the complainant against the answering Opposite Party No.1, moreover, answering Opposite Party No.1 is not the dealer of the Opposite Party No.2, as such no liability can be fastened upon Opposite Party No.1 and the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, the answering Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant as opposite party No.1 has only sold the product of the Opposite Party No.2 company and answering Opposite Party No.1 has not directly purchased the product in question from Opposite Party No.2, rather the same was purchased by the answering Opposite Party No.1 from some local dealer i.e. A.G.Electronics, Partap Road, Moga (and said local dealer has not been arrayed as party by the complainant for the reasons best known to him). Further submitted that it was brought to the notice of the complainant at the time of sale that all the warranties are to be given by opposite party No.2 company through its authorized service centre. It is submitted that the complaints of the complainant were allegedly got registered with the service centre of Opposite Party No.2 regarding the malfunction of the aforesaid product. It is submitted that complainant came to opposite party No.1 for reporting the malfunction of the aforesaid product and accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 guided the complainant and also provided the customer support numbers of opposite party No.2 to the complainant on which complainant time and again registered his complaints regarding mal function of aforesaid product. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that Opposite Party No.2 company provides a Free of Cost repair/replacement/service during warranty period to ensure equated performance of the product, but no free of cost services will be provided in case the unit is repaired by any unauthorized person. Averred that the company provided only a warranty on the products and replacement of the defective part of the product, if any, subject to the terms and conditions of the product warranty card. It is further stated that the basic meaning of the word "warranty" means the repair or change of a damaged product if it is within warranty. It is also stated that the basic meaning of the word "guarantee" means replacement of the product that is in the guarantee period. It is stated that the Opposite Party No. 2, provides only a warranty on its product, not a guarantee, so it is categorically proven that there is no question of replacement of the entire A.C. Unit in this case. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable for replacement of the entire air conditioning unit. Averred further that in present case the complaint relates to defect in goods and deficiency in service which can only be determined with proper analysis or test of the goods as per the mandatory provision contained under the Consumer Protection Act. Alleged defect in the subject product of the complainant are based on his conjecture and surmises which can never take the shape of evidence, hence in present case District Commission is left with no option but to proceed with the complaint as per provisions of Section 38 (2) (c) to (g) and accordingly the good in question i.e. "Panasonic A.C." shall be sent to "appropriate laboratory" as defined under section 2 (1) (a) of The Consumer Protection Act at the costs and expenses of the Complainant as mandated under section 38 (2) (c) of the Complaint. Hence in view of the aforesaid the consumer Commission should first procure an expert opinion as prescribed in section 38 (2) (b) to check whether there is any manufacturing defect in the product before passing any order.

          Submitted that on 05.06.2023, the complainant had purchased a Panasonic Air Conditioner bearing no.CS-KN18ZKY for a sum of Rs.40,000/- form Mangla Enterprises. Averred that the complainant has never produced the tax invoice ever. The documents attached by the complainant is not a tax invoice, but a bill of supply. Proper details of the price and taxes are not mentioned in the bill of supply, price of the AC unit is also not clear as the Bill of supply has multiple products mentioned without proper price & taxes. Hence the product is sold illegitimately and showcases mala-fide intention on the part of the Complainant. It is clarified that the said unit provided to the complainant was in a perfect condition as same had undergone various stringent quality checks before the same was sent to the dealer/market. The said unit was not installed by an authorised engineer of the answering opposite party but it was installed by some person appointed by the Complainant himself. The Complainant has falsely stated that the answering opposite Party has been deputed and the technician collected Rs.700/-. The complainant contacted the answering opposite party on 05.08.2023 vide call no.R25082320653083 and an authorized engineer was duly deputed and after thorough inspection it was found that due to poor installation by complainant's local engineer (unauthorized person) noise was emanating from the unit. The complainant was requested to get the Air conditioning unit reinstalled by the authorized service engineer of the answering opposite party but the complainant refused the same and contacted his local engineer for reinstallation of the unit and paid Rs.1500/- to the local person. It is clarified that no installation or reinstallation was ever conducted by the opposite party's engineer. The complainant has mala-fidely not attached document with his complaint showcasing the above. After the reinstallation by the local engineer deputed by the complainant himself, the noise issue didn't resolved thereafter the complainant again contacted Opposite Party No.2 on 23.08.2023 vide call no. R05092320723704. The Area Service Manager and engineer deputed by the Opposite Party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the product. Post inspection by authorised engineer & ASM, it was found that the unit does not have any issue. The noise is emanating from the unit only due to improper installation by local engineer. Hence the complainant was suggested to get the AC reinstalled by the professional trained engineer of the Opposite Party No.2 at an appropriate place for proper performance of AC. It is pertinent to mention herein that the complainant was advised to install the unit at the terrace of his house for which additional 15 feet of copper piping was required. Averred that considering the Complainant as an esteemed customer and as a gesture of good will, Opposite Party No.2 had offered the complainant re-installation and gas charging on free of cost basis which amounted to a total of Rs. 4916/-(Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixteen Runces Only). Only estimated cost of Rs.4200/- for the additional copper piping of 15 feet was payable by the complainant. Averred further that abundantly evident from the above that the complainant has shown great hostility towards the answering Opposite Party. The same is also evident with the correspondences between the Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant dated 27.08.2023, 28.09.2023 and 29.09.2023.

4.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.

5.       On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 has placed on record his affidavit as Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/D. Whereas, Opposite Party No.2 has placed on record affidavit of Neha Agarwal, Legal Counsel of Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.  as Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/2 to OP/4.

6.         We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties, gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 the complainant and also gone through the record.

7.       The case of the complainant it that he purchased one Panasonic 1.5 Ton Split AC having model CS-KN18ZKY from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2, for Rs.40,000/- vide bill/invoice bearing No.147 dated 05.06.2023. The said AC was installed into the room of the complainant and outdoor unit of the said AC was installed at outside of the room, but from the date of its purchase and installation, the outdoor unit of the said AC did not work properly as there is a huge noise in the same. The complainant lodged the complaint with Opposite Parties on different occasions, but the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the defect from the outdoor unit of the AC in question.

8.       On the other hand, the stand of Opposite Party No.1 is that the answering Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant as opposite party No.1 has only sold the product of the Opposite Party No.2 company and answering Opposite Party No.1 has not directly purchased the product in question from Opposite Party No.2, rather the same was purchased by the answering Opposite Party No.1 from some local dealer i.e. A.G.Electronics, Partap Road, Moga. Contended that opposite Party No.1 guided the complainant and also provided the customer support numbers of opposite party No.2 to the complainant on which complainant time and again registered his complaints regarding mal function of aforesaid product. So, there is no deficiency on their part.

9.       The stand of Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant contacted the answering opposite party on 05.08.2023 vide call no.R25082320653083 and an authorized engineer was duly deputed and after thorough inspection it was found that due to poor installation by complainant's local engineer noise was emanating from the unit. The complainant was requested to get the Air conditioning unit reinstalled by the authorized service engineer of the answering opposite party but the complainant refused the same and contacted his local engineer for reinstallation of the unit. Contended that no installation or reinstallation was ever conducted by the opposite party's engineer. After the reinstallation by the local engineer deputed by the complainant himself, the noise issue didn't resolved thereafter the complainant again contacted Opposite Party No.2 on 23.08.2023 vide call no. R05092320723704. The Area Service Manager and engineer deputed by the Opposite Party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the product. Post inspection by authorized engineer & ASM, it was found that the unit does not have any issue. The Noise is emanating from the unit only due to improper installation by local engineer. Hence the complainant was suggested to get the AC reinstalled by the professional trained engineer of the Opposite Party No.2 at an appropriate place for proper performance of AC, but he refused to do so.

10.     We have gone through the rival contentions of ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is well proved on record vide Ex.C2 that the complainant purchased the Ac in question from Opposite Party No.1, which is manufactured by Opposite Party No.2. It is also proved on record that during the warranty period outdoor unit of the said AC got defective as the same is making huge noise and complainant lodged the complaints regarding the same with Opposite Parties, which is proved on record, vide Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, but despite that Opposite Parties failed to rectify the defect in the AC in question. On this, the only stand of the Opposite Parties is that noise is emanating from the unit only due to improper installation by local engineer duly called upon by the complainant. No installation or reinstallation was ever conducted by the opposite party's engineer, but to prove their averments, the Opposite Parties failed to place on record any documentary evidence i.e. any email or any other correspondence between their service engineer and company that in which it has been ever stated by the service engineer of the Opposite Parties that the complainant got installed/reinstalled the AC in question from any unauthorized service engineer. However, it is well proved on record that the AC in question was purchased on 05.06.2023 and it is also well proved on record  during the warranty period, outdoor unit of the said AC got defective as the same is giving unnecessary noise, which the Opposite Parties were liable to remove/repair free of costs, but they failed to do so. Hence, it stands proved on record that the Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by not removing the defect in the outdoor unit of the AC in question. As it is apparent on record that there is a huge noise in the outdoor unit of the AC in question, so the objection raised by Opposite Party No.2 in their written reply that this Commission should procure the expert opinion and the product in question should be sent to appropriate laboratory is not maintainable.

11.     In view of the above discussion, the instant complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed to refund the amount of the AC in question i.e. Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the complainant, subject to return of the AC in question by the complainant to the Opposite Parties. Further the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and for resorting to unfair trade practice. Also the Opposite Parties are liable to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they are further burdened with additional cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission