Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/448/2023

RAMNIK BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PARAS ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINER KUMAR & ASSOCIATES

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	448 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	04.09.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	21.02.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Ramnik Bansal son of Late Sh.Pyare Lal Bansal, aged about 49 years, r/o Block E8, H.No.9, 2^nd Floor, DLF Valley, near Amravati Enclave, Panchkula, Haryana

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  M/s Paras Enterprises, SCO No.357-358, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Partner/ Proprietor.

2]  M/s Panasonic India Private Limited, Head Office: 11^th Floor -12^th Floor, Ambience Corporate Tower 2, Ambience Island DLF, Phase 3, Sector 24, Gurugram, Haryana 122002 through its Managing Director.

3]  M/s GS Environment Solutions, SCO 29, Palam Enclave, Near Ranjan Plaza, Zirakpur, Punjab 140603 through its Partner/Proprietor

     ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for the complainant

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh.Nikhil Sharma, Adv. for Sh.Aseek Gupta, Counsel for OP No.2.

OP No.3 exparte.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that the complainant purchased one Panasonic Spilt Air Conditioning Unit 1.5 Ton from the OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, on 25.08.2022 for an amount of Rs.42,200/- carrying one year warranty    (Ann.C-1). It is stated that while the said AC was being installed by the Official of OP No.2 Company, the whole wire caught fire as a result some parts of the Air Condition Unit were also damaged.  However, the damaged parts were replaced by the Company Official of OP.2 after some days.  It is submitted that after few months i.e. in Nov., 2022 the Air Conditioner started giving problem of hearing issue, which was attended by the Official of OP No.2 on 20.11.2022 (Ann.C-4).  Thereafter, in summer season i.e. in June, 2023 when the complainant started using the AC, he noticed the problem of water leakage and excessive sound problem from it.  The complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs in response to which Job IDs on 10.6.2023 and 29.7.2023 were created but despite of all that, none visited to repair the problem in the AC and instead his request was cancelled due to reason Unit Working Ok Ann.C-5 to C-7).  Thereafter the complainant again lodged the complaint on 5.8.2023 and the engineer of OP No.2 attend it on 16.8.2023 but failed to remove the defect/problem in the AC, as such the complainant had to lodge another complaints with OPs on 17.8.2023 & 25.8.2023.  However, the OPs failed to remove the defects in the AC and instead closed the complaints of the complainant with false report of Unit working ok.  It is pleaded that the complainant even visited the OP No.1 personally with request to rectify the problem in the AC but to no avail.  It is also pleaded that the complainant failed to utilize the comfort of AC in summer season, which defeated the purpose of its purchase. Hence, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the cost of the AC in question with interest as well as compensation and litigation cost.

 

2]       The OP No.1 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 01.11.2023.

 

3]       After service of notice, the OP No.2 put in appearance, filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the AC in question as installed at the premises of the complainant on 02.09.2022.  The complainant lodged complaint in Nov., 2022 and upon inspection by the team, it was found the AC unit was working perfectly fine as per specification and issued occurred due to incorrect setting selected by the complainant.  The problem of unwanted noise and water leakage from the AC unit lodged by complainant on 10.6.2023 was attended and upon inspection it was found that the said AC unit was working properly and there no such issued as reported.  On 29.7.2023, the complainant again approached OP No.2 with complaint of water leakage and unwanted noise from the AC but on inspection by technicians no performance deficiency or functional fault with the AC unit was found and the AC unit was working perfectly as per its specifications. It is pleaded that the complainant despite registering another complaint on 5.8.2023 was reluctant to provide an appointment for the engineer to visit and inspect the said AC unit and after multiple attempts, the engineer of OP No.2 could attend the complaint but did not find any problem or defect in the AC.  It is also pleaded that the engineer of OP No.2 again visited the complainant in response to his complaint dated 28.8.2023 but again did not find any defect in the AC Unit and as such the complaint was closed.  It is submitted that the complainant, thereafter, lodged several unscrupulous complaints to harass Op No.2 as after lodging these complaints, he remained reluctant to allow the engineer to visit and inspect the AC Unit. It is also submitted that the AC Unit had no performance deficiency or manufacturing defect. Lastly the OP No.2 has prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

4]       The OP No.3 (GS Environment Solutions) did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 02.01.2024.

 

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including written submission. 

 

7]       The question to be decided whether there is defect in the AC Unit in question sold by the OPs to the complainant or not?

 

8]       To find out answer to this issue, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-

         The complainant has alleged that the AC Unit in question started malfunctioning soon after its installation by the OPs.  The Job Cards issued by the OPs about the frequent repairs of the AC Unit in question i.e. Anns.C-3, C-4, C-6, C-12 & C-15 that too during its warranty period clearly proves that the performance of the AC Unit is not satisfactory.  

 

9]       Further, the OP No.1/Seller & OP No.3/Service Centre did not come forward despite being duly served to contradict the allegations in the present complaint, which draws an adverse inference against them.  

   

10]      In Vinoo Bhagat vs General Motors (India) Ltd & anr. (FA No.150 of 1998, order dated Jan. 30, 2003), the Apex Consumer Court put two conditions for ordering refund or replacement:-

1.   If the car is defective and its use is substantially impaired and
2. the manufacturer/dealers fails to rectify the defect despite reasonable opportunity given for it.

           In the present complaint, both these conditions are fulfilled as the AC Unit is defective and its use is substantially impaired and the manufacturer/dealer failed to rectify the defect despite reasonable opportunity given for it. 

 

11]     Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that as the product in question becomes defective soon after its purchase and needed several repairs during warranty period, therefore, the complainant has lost faith upon the product in question and thus, it would be in interest of justice and equity to direct OPs to refund its price to the complainant instead of its further repairs. Therefore, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 is clearly made out, which certainly has caused harassment, mental agony and loss to the complainant.

 

12]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed against OPs No.1 to 3. The OPs No.1 to 3 are jointly & severally directed to refund the price of the AC Unit in question i.e. Rs.42,200/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its purchase/25.08.2022  till its actual realization and to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the harassment & agony and litigation cost. The OPs shall collect the AC Unit in question along with its accessories, if any, from the premises of the complainant after making payment of the awarded amount.

         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

13]     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21.02.2024                                                                         

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER