Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/903

Mrs.Jaswinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Panasonic Electronics India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 903 of 20.12.2017

   Date of Decision       :   06.08.2018 

 

Mrs Jaswinder Kaur wife of Shri Mohinder Singh, resident of House No.7673/1, New Guru Angad Dev Colony, Backside ATI College, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Panasonic Electronics India Limited, 12^th Floor, Ambience Island NH-8, Gurugram (Haryana) PIN-122002, through its Managing Director/CEO.

2.M/s Rajni Enterprises through its Partner/Proprietor Ms Rajni Arora wife of Shri Ravinder Arora.

3.Jasvi Arora son of Shri Ravinder Arora authorized representative of M/s Rajni Enterprises, Opposite Petrol Pump, Main Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         Sh.Chaman Lal Vashisht, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant purchased Panasonic Refrigerator bearing No.NR DM-441MSIN on 30.06.2017 from OP2 on assurance that product is of latest version having full specification in the booklet. Purchase of this refrigerator was done on assurance of OP3 through invoice by paying the price of Rs.50,000/-. OP2 and Op3 gave assurance on behalf of OP1(the manufacturer) that refrigerator in question is under warranty and guarantee for a period of one year. On this assurance, refrigerator after purchase was go installed by the complainant at her residential address. During the process of installation, executives Sh.Sukhraj Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Rahul broke the main wire of the refrigerator and on raising of objection by the complainant, an assurance was given that wire will be changed within a short period. However, that assurance was false. Refrigerator is not working properly because the same is not giving due cooling and even emitting noise. Four complaints dated 15.9.2017, 18.9.2017, 19.9.2017 and 21.9.2017 were lodged through telephonic calls, but to no effect. The above named executives of OP1 openly proclaimed that they cannot solve the problem of refrigerator because of its being a defective piece. On sending of emails, reply was received from the representative of OP1 that defective refrigerator will be replaced with a new one. Even apology was tendered, but thereafter, nothing was done. It is claimed that due to defective refrigerator, complainant has suffered lot of mental tension, agony and harassment and that is why, legal notice dated 26.10.2017 through counsel was served, but even then nothing has been done by Ops and that is why this complaint filed by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Prayer made for directing Ops to replace the refrigerator in question with a new one and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

2.                OPs are ex-parte in this case.

3.               Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and then her counsel closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                          Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments addressed by counsel for complainant and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

5.                Purchase of refrigerator in question from Op2 through invoice Ex.C1 on 30.06.2017 for price of Rs.50,000/- is proved by contents of Ex.C1 along with supporting affidavit Ex.CA of complainant. Date of production of refrigerator mentioned in Ex.C2 as July 2014 and as such, certainly submission advanced by counsel for complainant has force that old model of refrigerator delivered to the complainant, despite the fact that it was purchased after three years of its manufacture.

6.                Contents of affidavit Ex.CA gets corroboration from the contents of photo-shot  Ex.C3 for establishing that wire of refrigerator is broken. Breakage     of this wire as per contents of affidavit Ex.CA took place, when executives of OP1 namely Sh.Sukhraj Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Rahul came for installation of refrigerator. So, this defect established by photographic depiction of Ex.C3.

7.                Defects in the refrigerator were pointed out with request to provide due services and solve the problem by sending email Ex.C4, in response of which, apology was tendered by the officials of OP1 through email Ex.C5 with assurance that officials of OP1 will get in touch with the complainant. However, despite wait, nothing done is a fact borne from the photostat copy of email Ex.C6 and thereafter, apology again tendered on 22.9.2017 by the officials of OP1 through email Ex.C7. Through email Ex.C8, assurance was given to the complainant that update will be done shortly. However, the staff of OP1 was not serious in attending the complaints and that is why, email Ex.C9 dated 23.09.2017 was sent, on which, assurance through reply Ex.C10 dated 23.09.2017 was given qua getting in touch with the complainant very soon. Again apology through email Ex.C11 dated 4.10.2017 was tendered by the officials of OP1 with assurance that they will get in touch with the complainant very soon. Defects in the refrigerator again were pointed out to Mr.Gurwinder Bansal, an official of OP1 through email Ex.C12, in response of which, apology through Ex.C13 again was tendered on 4.10.2017. Email Ex.C14 further shows that request of complainant had been sent to the concerned department and same still get in touch with the complainant very soon. Even legal notice Ex.C17 through postal receipts Ex.C18 to Ex.C20 was served, but nothing done and that is why this complaint had to be filed. So, from the above referred correspondence, it is made out that though complainant kept on contacting the officials of OP1 for removal of defects in the purchased refrigerator, but those defects have not been removed, but only assurances were given to the complainant,  without removing the faults. That certainly is an utmost deficiency in service        on the part of OP1, the manufacturer as well as Op2, the dealer, who sold the product with assurance that due services will be provided.

8.                Certificate of warranty Ex.C15 along with operating instructions manual Ex.C16 also produced. Warranty of refrigerator as per contents of Ex.C15 was for one year from the date of purchase. However, warranty of compressor was for four years. That warranty was to cover only repairs and not to entitle the purchaser for replacement of the product. Reference to clause no.1 of certificate of warranty Ex.C15 can specifically be made in this respect. In view of this warranty clause, it is obvious that as the defects in the refrigerator took place within 3 to 4 months of its purchase and as such, it was the duty of manufacturer i.e. OP1 and of dealer i.e. Op2 to remove the defects. Even if right of complainant for replacement of refrigerator is not there in view of clause no.1 of warranty certificate Ex.C15, but her right of getting due repairs certainly is there. As despite repeated requests, OP1 and Op2 failed to rectify the defects and as such, certainly complainant suffered lot of mental tension and harassment, due to which, she is entitled for compensation of amount of Rs.7000/- at least. OP3 is the authorized representative of OP1 and as such, virtually Op3 is an agent of OP2. OP3 for promoting sale of refrigerator in question allured the complainant in course of agency business and as such, in view of section 226 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, it has to be held that liability remains of Principal i.e. Op2. Section 226 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 specifically provides that when the contract entered into through an agent, then the same will have legal consequences of such nature as if contract had been entered into by acts done by the principal in person. There is no allegation that OP3 acted beyond the scope of agency and as such liability remains of his principal i.e. Op2. As warranty clauses provides for rendering of free of cost service during warranty period and as such, complainant entitled for repair of refrigerator in question free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed against OP1 and OP2 with direction to them to repair the refrigerator in question free of costs within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order. Complaint against OP3 however is dismissed. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only)   more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 and OP2. Payment of the compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Liability to pay these amounts by OP1 and OP2 will be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Vinod Gulati)                                        (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.08.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.