Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/107/2015

M/s.Tasnim fakhruddin - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.Madanagopal

21 Aug 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 23.02.2015

                                                                          Date of Order : 21.08.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                 : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.107/2015

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018

                                 

Mrs. Tasnim Fakhruddin,

W/o. Mr. Fakhruddin,

No.47/49, Ibrahim Sahib Street,

2^nd Floor, Opp. Madi Poonga,

Chennai – 600 001.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                    

 

      ..Versus..

1. M/s. Panosonic India Private Limited,

Represented by its Manager,

No.88, 6^th Floor, “SPIC Building Annexe”,

Mount Road,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.

 

2. M/s. Girias Investment Private Limited,

Represented by its Manager,

PA-Building,

No.48, Venkatakrishna Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.                                             ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. R. Madanagopaal & others

Counsel for 1^st opposite party  :  M/s. K. Jayaraman & another

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party :  Exparte

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.15,700/- together with 18% interest p.a. from 15.08.2013 to till the date of payment, to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for damages with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he purchased a Panasonic Washing Machine on 15.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.15,700/-.  The said machine was installed on 16.08.2014.  From the very first day onwards, the washing machine created problems after problems and was not working properly.  On 28.12.2014, the complainant made a complaint within the period of warranty of 2 years.  The opposite parties’ service persons attended the fault and was not able to rectify the mistake even though some spare parts has been changed.  Hence, the complainant made calls repeatedly and sent an email dated:22.01.2015 for which, the 1^st opposite party has responded.   One Mr. Gautham Kumar of VOC – Customer Service through Email and through helpline sent in stereo form reply.  Since the washing machine is not functioning properly, the complainant was put to great hardship in washing the clothes.  The opposite parties has not taken effective steps to replace the spare parts.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     Inspite of receipt of the notice, the 2^nd opposite party has not come forward to appear before this Forum and hence the 2^nd opposite party was set Exparte.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant purchased the washing machine on 15.08.2014.  The Service Engineer attached with the opposite parties checked the product and demonstrated the functioning and handed over to the complainant and was installed duly on 16.08.2014 which is entered in the customer case history.  On 02.01.2015, the complainant has registered a complaint vide complaint no PI-ASC-1408-029756 and the Service Engineer have attended fault in the washing machine and found out that PCB is not working properly.  At that time, for the said model washing machine, PCB is not available in the service unit.  Hence a PCB of another washing machine was replaced temporarily.  Further the 1^st opposite party states that immediately after receipt of PCB of the same model, the opposite party contacted the complainant for replacement.   But the complainant refused to permit the service person.   Further the 1^st opposite party states that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty clause No.3 it reads as follows:

“Warranty take care of any manufacturing defect or breakdown of the product during warranty period.  Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., herein after referred to as ‘Company” at its sole discretion will repair or replace such parts and defective parts could become the property of the company, Repair under warranty may also be carried out by the Authorized service centre of the Company”.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that there is no manufacturing defect in order to claim replacement.  The compensation claim is exorbitant and imaginary.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  In spite of sufficient time is given, the 1^st opposite party has not come forward to file his proof affidavit to prove the contentions in the written version.   Hence it is concluded as ‘No Proof Affidavit’.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant  is entitled to get refund of Rs.15,700/- with interest at 18% p.a. as prayed for? alternatively to replace the washing machine as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards damages with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The 2^nd opposite party remain Exparte.  In spite of sufficient time is given, the 1^st opposite party has not come forward to file his proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  The opposite parties has not filed any written arguments and not turned up to advance any oral arguments also.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel. Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Panasonic Washing Machine on 15.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.15,700/- as per Ex.A1 invoice.  The said machine was installed on 16.08.2014.  From the very first day onwards, the washing machine created problems after problems and was not working properly.  On 28.12.2014, the complainant made a complaint within the period of warranty of 2 years.  But as per Ex.A2, the complaint was made on 22.01.2015.  The opposite parties’ service persons attended the fault and was not able to rectify the mistake even though some spare parts has been changed.  Hence, the complainant made calls repeatedly and sent an email vide Ex.A2 for which, the 1^st opposite party has responded.   One Mr. Gautham Kumar of VOC – Customer Service through Email and through helpline sent in stereo form reply.  The replies by the 1^st opposite party is marked from Ex.A4 to Ex.A7.  Since the washing machine is not functioning properly, the complainant was put to great hardship in washing the clothes caused great mental agony.  The opposite parties has not taken effective steps to replace the spare parts which amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant is claiming the cost price of the washing machine with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. alternatively replacement of washing machine with a compensation of Rs.35,000/- with cost.

7.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant  purchased the washing machine on 15.08.2014.  The Service Engineer attached with the opposite parties checked the product and demonstrated the functioning and handed over to the complainant and was installed duly on 16.08.2014 which is entered into the customer case history. On 02.01.2015, the complainant has registered a complaint vide complaint no PI-ASC-1408-029756 and the Service Engineer have attended the fault in the washing machine and found out that PCB is not working properly.  At that time, for the said model washing machine, PCB is not available in the service unit.  Hence a PCB of another washing machine was replaced temporarily.  But the 1^st opposite party has not produced any record.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that immediately after receipt of PCB of the same model, the opposite party contacted the complainant for replacement.   But the complainant refused to permit the service person.   For that also, there is no record; proves the deficiency in service and manufacturing defect.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty clause No.3 it reads as follows:

“Warranty take care of any manufacturing defect or breakdown of the product during warranty period.  Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., herein after referred to as ‘Company” at its sole discretion will repair or replace such parts and defective parts could become the property of the company, Repair under warranty may also be carried out by the Authorized service centre of the Company”.

8.     Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that there is no manufacturing defect in order to claim replacement.  The compensation claimed is exorbitant and imaginary.  But the 1^st opposite party has not proved their contentions by filing proof affidavit and documents.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall repair the washing machine by replacing the defective spare parts within one month, failing which, the opposite parties shall refund a sum of Rs.15,700/- with interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to repair the complaint mentioned washing machine by replacing the spare parts within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the opposite parties shall refund a sum of  Rs.15,700/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand and seven hundred only) being the cost price of the said washing machine  with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint  i.e. 23.02.2015 to till the date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of August 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	15.08.2013	Copy of the invoice and warranty issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A2	22.01.2015	Copy of the email sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A3	22.01.2015	Copy of the email of the customer service of the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A4	24.01.2015	Copy of the reply mail by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A5	28.01.2015	Copy of the reply mail by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6	03.02.2015	Copy of the email of the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A7	05.02.2015	Copy of the reply email of the 1st opposite party to the complainant

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NO PROOF AFFIDAVIT

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT