BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.157 of 2024
Date of Instt. 29.04.2024
Date of Decision: 26.07.2024
Mukhjinder Pal Singh Sidhu aged about 52 years son of Sh. Mangal Singh, resident of Village Nangal Sharma, P. O. Ladhewali, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122002 Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. M/s Rai Enterprises, G. T. Road, Jalandhar Through its prop. Ms.Bharat Bhushan.
3. Mr. Simranjit Singh, Manager Authorized Service Centre, (Care Point) (M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.) House No.198, Dilbagh Nagar Ext. Opp. Narula Palace, 120 Ft. Road, Jalandhar.
4. Mr. Nitish Salopal, A. S. M., M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Service Centre, (Care Point), House No.198, Dilbagh Nagar Ext. Opp. Narula Palace, 120 Ft. Road, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
OPs No.1 to 4 exparte.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint on the grounds that he had purchased a Split A.C. bearing Model No.CS/KN18YKY, CU/KNI8YKY from the OP No.2 on 28.04.2022, vide separate bill for Rs.33,000/-. The AC was installed and after few days of the installation of the AC, problem occurred in the indoor unit of the Split AC and display of indoor unit started showing F 91. After some seconds, the AC slowed down. The complaint was got registered. Employee of the OP No.3 came alongwith Mr. Ranjit Singh and inspected the faulty product and refilled the nitrogen gas in outer unit and after 2-3 days they again came and inspected the unit and found that there was no leakage of gas from the outer unit. After that A.C. gas was refilled by the employees of OP No.3 and the complaint was presumed to be sorted out. After few days the internal unit again started showing the error ‘df’ on its display. The complainant again moved a complaint on Toll Free numbers to OP No.1. After the complaint again the employee of OP No.3 came and inspected the product. The complainant told the employees that after the error ‘df’ on the display the working of A.C. abruptly shut down. After inspection they referred the change of censor of internal unit of A.C. and after a day censor was replaced with new one and complaint was resolved. After the change of censor again the error started showing on display of internal unit occurred as 'df’ and not only this water leakage started from internal unit of A.C. in drops. Again the complaint was moved. After inspecting the A.Cs internal unit, OP No.3 recommended the replacement of the chassis of the A.C. and placed the order for the same and after few days chassis of internal unit of A.C. was replaced. In the month of March 2023 warranty of the product was extended by the complainant after paying Rs.3,800/- to OP No.1 and the warranty was extended till 28.04.2024. Again on next season of summer of 2023, the problem of water leakage started from the internal unit of A.C. and error 'df’ also started displaying as mentioned supra and again matter was reported to OP No.1 on Toll Free number and product was inspected by OP No.3 again. Change of Chassis and change of PCB was again recommended by OP No.3 and order was placed accordingly and after few days again chassis and PCB of internal unit of A.C. was replaced with new one. Again after few days water leakage in drops from the internal unit of A.C. started. Again complaint was got registered and matter was reported to the OP No.3, thereafter the matter was referred to OP No.4 Mr. Nitish Salopal by OP No.3 when the unit was inspected by the OP No.3. The representative of OP No.4 Mr. Paramjit Singh made the temporary adjustment by placing cardboard pieces under the unit and made efforts to stop water leakage by temporarily leveling the AC unit. When he enquired from representative of OP No.4, the reason for doing so, he replied ‘there is cold-drink inside the glass and water drops are present outside the glass, same is occurring in AC that there is evaporation due to the hot weather outside and cool inside the unit’. Again after few days, problem of water leakage started from internal unit and again the complaint was again registered. The complainant made request the representative of the OP No.3 and OP No.4 to replace the internal unit of the AC. They assured the complainant that they would make request to change the internal unit. Thereafter, OP No.4 again asked the complainant that they want to inspect the product, but the complainant refused, but despite refusal the representative Mr. Nitish Salopal called the wife of the complainant regarding the visit of Paramjit Singh to inspect the product and the wife of the complainant told them that he has already inspected the product number of times and made request to replace the internal unit of the AC. Mr. Nitish Salopal misbehaved with the wife of the complainant and the complaint of the complainant was cancelled by the representatives. The complainant again reported the matter through email to the OP No.1 with the copy to OP No.2 but no reply was received nor the unit of the AC was replaced. The complainant has alleged the unfair trade practice due to illegal acts on the part of the OPs. The complainant has further alleged that due to the this attitude of the OPs, he has suffered great mental tension, harassment, financial loss and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return the amount paid to the OPs i.e. Rs.36,800/- alongwith interest upto date. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service all the OPs failed to appear and ultimately all the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
5. The complainant has proved on record the invoice Ex.C-2 showing that he had purchased the AC for Rs.33,000/-. The complainant has also proved on record the warranty and extended warranty Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 and the message informing the complainant that the extended warranty has been issued for Panasonic product. The same has been proved as Ex.C-3. He has proved on record the photographs in the pen drive. There is video also in the pen drive supported with the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.C-6. The pen drive has been played in the Commission which shows that there is water leakage from the AC as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has also proved on record the emails Ex.C-7 in which the complainant has given in detail the issue and the problems suffered by the complainant. The complainant has given the detail in the complaint alleging that details of the complaint made by the complainant to the service centre, but as per the allegations no reply has been received from the OPs rather the misbehavior of Mr. Nitish Salopal, when the wife of the complainant refused to get the product inspected has been alleged. Due to this behavior of Mr.Nitish Salopar, the complaint was cancelled by him. Notice was also sent to all the OPs, which has been proved from Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-15, even the notice was sent to the OPs by email which has been proved from Ex.C-16 and Ex.C-17 and the screenshots have been proved Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-21 to show that the notices were sent to the OPs through whatsup also, meaning thereby the OPs have full knowledge about the complaints and non-resolution of the issue of the complainant with regard to the product.
6. On the other hand, the OPs have not come to contest the case. So, the version of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un-challenged, even then the same is required to glance very deeply. The allegation of the complainant is supported by his own affidavit Ex.CA and supported documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21.
7. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complainant has suffered in the hands of OPs. Thus, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs has been proved and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant to the OPs, to the tune of Rs.36,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase, till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
26.07.2024 Member Member President
