DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.137 of 18.4.2019

                                      Decided on: 12.3.2021

Kulwant Singh aged 65 years son of Hardial Singh resident of House No.225, Near Gurudwara Sahib,charan Bagh, Patiala (Mobile No.94631-71106)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Registered Office at Panasonic India Private Limited, SPIC BUILDING Annexe 6^th Floor No.88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032
2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Service Centre, Near National Insurance Co. Patiala,Factory Area 1^st Goel Chakkar, Patiala through its In-charge.
3. M/s Amar Enterprises,through Sh.Antarpal its partner/proprietor, opposite Kashmirian Gurudwara Sahib, Tripuri Town, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member     

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Lovedeep Singh Saini, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Vaibhav Mangla, counsel for OPsNo.1&2

                                      Opposite party No.3 exparte.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Kulwant Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).

Facts of the complaint

2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant purchased one split Panasonic Room Air conditioner, Model CS-US12SKY(indoor unit), one stabilizer etc. vide bill dated 5.4.2017 from OP No.3 and manufactured by OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.35,500/- to be paid in  8 installments of Rs.3250/-each and also having paid down payment of Rs.9500/- and the A.C. carries warranty of five years. It is averred that the compressor of the said AC did not work properly and the defect brought to the notice of the OPs who instead of replacing the same repaired the compressor with the assurance that the same will work properly but still the same is not working properly and the OPs did not replace the AC with new one despite repeated requests despite the fact the A.C. being having manufacturing defect. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to replace the above said with new one; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs No.1&2 appeared through counsel and counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply while OP No.3 despite service did not come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.5.2019.

Reply/Written statement

4. In  the written reply filed by OPs No.1&2 they raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has ever accrued in favour of the complainant and that the complaint is totally misconceived, false and vexatious and has been filed with ulterior motives.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the AC was purchased from OP No.3. It is submitted that under the limited warranty the product is covered the repair of any such defect which might have occurred due to faulty manufacture or material within the warranty period and does not entail the complainant for replacement of the entire product under any circumstances. It is denied that the complainant had ever communicated to the OPs for any alleged defects in the AC. After denying all other averments, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6.  
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 and C2 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1&2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Arjun Tanwar alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP2 and closed the evidence.
8. The complainant has also filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9.  
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased One Split Panasonic Room Air conditioner alongwith stabilizer on 5.4.2017 from OP No.3 for a total sum of Rs.35,500/- which were to be paid in 8 installments of Rs.3250/-each and had also made the down payment of Rs.9500/-. The ld. counsel further argued that the AC in question did not work properly since the date of purchase, so it be replaced.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has argued that the AC in question was purchased from OP No.3 and it has no role between the complainant and OP No.3 as no consideration was paid to OPs No.1&2.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant for the first time approached the OPs on 23.5.2017 for free general service request, which was immediately accepted and job card was opened. At that the technician of the OP visited the premises of the complainant and found the AC in working condition. The ld. counsel further argued that for the 2^nd time the complainant approached on 5.4.2018 with regard to cooling issue.This time also his request was immediately accepted. The technician of OPs visited the premises of the complainant and found that there was leakage of gas from the unit and resolved the issue by filling the gas. The ld. counsel further argued that Panasonic Air Conditioned Warranty Policy is only valid for one year on the overall product and on the ‘compressor’ fitted in the AC for five years from the date of purchase. The ld. counsel further argued that as no payment has been made to OPs so complaint be dismissed.
11. To prove the case, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is the certificate of warranty having one year warranty on the product and five years warranty for compressor,Ex.C2 is the invoice vide which the complainant purchased the AC in question for an amount of Rs.35,500/-
12. On the other hand Sh.Arjun Tanwar, has tendered his affidavit Ex.OPA on behalf of OPs  and has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OP1 is the extrat of minutes,Ex.OP2 is warranty terms and conditions.
13. Ex.C1 is the warranty card in which one year warranty is for whole AC and for the compressor fitted in all Panasonic Split AC is for five years. In the present case, as per the allegations the compressor is defective. As such the complaint stands allowed and OPs No.2&3 are directed to change the compressor to the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order.They are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-and also litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.  

ANNOUNCED

DATED:12.3.2021       

                                    Vinod Kumar Gulati      Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                             Member                                       President