Orissa

Cuttak

CC/132/2017

Hariram Kedia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Patra Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Self

28 Jun 2018

ORDER

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

                                                                                    C.C. No.132/2017

           Hari Ram Kedia,

Upper Telenga Bazar,

Cuttack-753009..                                                                            … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.         M/s. Patra Electronics,

Sector-6,C.D.A,Cuttack,753014.

 

2.        Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,

SPIC BUILDING ANNEXE,

6^th Floor,No.8,Guindy,

Chennai-600032.

 

3.        M/s. Cool & Cool,,

Dargha Bazar,Hati Pokhari Chhak,

Cuttack-753001.                                                             … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   10.11.2017

Date of Order: 28.06.2018.

 

For the complainant:               Self.

For Opp.Party No.2    :             Mr. Arabinda Triupathy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps 1 & 3 :                   None.

 

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                The complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service on their part and seeking appropriate relief against them in terms of his prayer in the consumer complaint.

1. The facts of the complainant’s case stated in brief are that the complainant had purchased one 1.5 ton window Air-conditioner of Panasonic make having Model No.WAC YC1815YA and Sl. No.1815307735 on 27.10.2015 from O.P No.1 for a consideration of Rs.28,100/-.  Copy of the invoice has been filed and marked as Annexure-1.  The complainant had made down payment of Rs.24,600/- and the rest amount was adjusted towards the cost of the old L.G. Air-conditioner which was exchanged at that time.  There was warranty period of one year on the new Air-conditioner and 5 years on its compressor.  Annexure-2 is the photo copy of the said warranty card. 

As per the warranty condition, the complainant was entitled to 3 nos. of free services within a period of one year.The O.P.2 has already provided two nos. of free services.It is stated that after two months of second servicing, the said Air-conditioner developed various problems.It did not have proper cooling effect and there was improper display in the PCB.The said Air-conditioner at times got switched off and on automatically although it was backed up by an independent 4 K.W stabilizer.

It is specifically stated that no third free service was provided to the complainant for which he contacted O.P.2 in the Help line No.180010311333 on 20.10.2016.In the next day a person of Cuttack Service Centre contacted the complainant for providing free service and the latter told him to come after 5.30 P.M. but the technician did not come.The said technician requested the complainant to come at 9.30 P.M. for providing free service but the complainant did not agree since it was the sleeping time of his ailing wife who was suffering from various old age complications and for whose comfort the said Air-conditioner was purchased.The technician was told to come on 22.10.16 for service but in vain.Subsequently the complainant had sent mails on 23.10.16 & 24.10.16 to O.P.2 vide Annexure-3 & 4 requesting him to take necessary steps for providing free service.

It is stated that the complainant had made repeated complaints for more than 10 times on different dates to O.P.2 for the same relief. Sometimes request of the complainant was attended but no satisfactory service was provided andsome other times his request was not heeded to by the O.P.2.Annexure-6,9,10,12,14,15 & 16 series have been filed to this effect.The complainant was even illegally compelled to pay Rs.345/- and Rs.450/- vide Annexure-7 & 8 to the technicians of O.P.2 for providing service which was not due to them.

O.P.3 had sent some technicians on behalf of O.P.2 to attend the call of the complainant and for that reason said O.P.3 had submitted a bill showing claim of Rs.6,900/- towards repairing of A.C and replacement of defective parts.A copy of this bill has been filed and marked as annexure-15.

It is also stated that the O.P.2 had deliberately and willfully failed to provide the third free service to the complainant for which the defects persisted for a long period and it is tantamount to gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.The complainant and his old ailing wife had undergone serious hardship and mental agony being deprived of getting the benefit of the newly purchased Air-conditioner for a long time.It is also stated that when O.P.2 failed to remove the defects of the Air-conditioner even after taking various attempts by his technicians, the defect in the said machine appears to be a manufacturing defect and the O.P.2 is liable for the same.Accordingly it is prayed that the O.P.2 may be directed to repair the said Air-conditioner freecost at the earliest, or to replace the Air-conditioner by a new one free of cost with fresh warranty or to refund the cost of the air-conditioner with interest @ 12% per annum, to refund the service charge of Rs.795/- collected from him, to award Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, humiliation and harassment caused to him, to give Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation and to award any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The O.P.1 who sold the defective Air-conditioner has stated in his version that he is an authorized dealer only to sell the products of O.P.2.  Service was to be provided by the concerned company.  The complaint received from the complainant in the instant case has already been communicated to O.P.2 on that very date.  He is no way responsible for deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

The O.P.3 has been set exparte.

3. The O.P.2 has filed the written version and denied the material allegation of the complainant.  It is stated that O.P.2 is a leading business company in mobiles and electrical appliances.  Each and every product of the said company is duly checked by a team of experts before being despatched to the market for sale.  The fact that the complainant is entitled to three nos. of free services within a period of one year of purchase of the Air-conditioner is admitted by him.  But it is stated that the complainant’s allegations is baseless and the requests of the complainant have been duly attended to and there is no liability on O.P.2 that he was deficient in providing service to the complainant.  Accordingly it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and for the O.Ps at length and gone through the case records.  The bone of contention between the parties is the failure of O.P.2 to provide third free service to the Air-Conditioner as per terms and conditions within one year of purchase.  While the complainant has reiterated his stand that because of failure of O.P.2to provide third free service, the defect in the Air-conditioner persisted for a long period causing undue harassment and mental agony to him and his old ailing wife, O.P.2 has stated that the request of the complainant has been duly attended to by his technical persons.
5. It is an admitted fact that all three free service had to be provided within one year of purchase i.e. by 26.10.2016 but the problem was noticed in the Air-conditioner within the period of one year more specifically after 2 months of the second free service and for that reason the complainant contacted O.P.2 in his Help line No. 180010311333 on 20.10.2016.  It is categorically stated by the complainant that more than 10 times he had lodged complaint   with the O.P.2 but of no avail.  To that effect he has already filed documents vide Annexures-3,4,6,9,10,12,14 & 16 series and the contents of those documents have not been denied by O.P.2.  The learned counsel for the O.P.2 although has admitted that he has job card to prove that third free service has been provided to the complainant yet no such document has been produced in the court at the time of hearing.  It clearly indicates that O.P.2 has provided deficient service to the complainant as alleged in the consumer complaint.  O.P.1 being the seller of the Air-conditioner is not liable in this case so far as deficiency in service is concerned.  Hence ordered;

ORDER

The case is allowed against O.Ps.1 & 2 on contest and against O.P.3 exparte.  The O.P.2 is directed to repair the Air-conditioner of the complainant free of cost or to refund the cost of Rs.28,100/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the case till realization.  In case of refund of the above amount, the complainant has to handover the defective set of Air-conditioner to the O.P.2.  The O.P.2 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as well as litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.  This order shall take effect within 45 days of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 28^th    day of June,2018 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                      President.

                                                             

                                                                                                   

 

                                                                                                                     ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)