Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/79/2023

Yogesh Madaan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panaconic India Pvt. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Thakkar

06 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                         Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                      Dr.K.S.Nirania and Smt.Harisha Mehta, Members

 

                                                                    C.C.No.79 of 2023.                                                                                  

   Date of Instt.: 24.04.2023.                                                                           Date of Decision: 06.05.2024

 

Yogesh Madaan @ Yogesh Kumar son of Leela Krishan resident of DSP Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                             ..Complainant

                              Versus

1.Panasonic India Pvt. Limited, 12^th floor Ambience Tower, Ambience Island NH-8, Gurgaon 122002 through its Authorized signatory.

2.Narula Electronics Ratia, Chungi Hanspur Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its proprietor/authorized signatory.

                                                                             ..Opposite Parties.

Complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

Present:                 Sh.Jitender Thakker Advocate for complainant.                                           Ops exparte vide order dated 19.07.2023.            

 

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

1.                                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased an air conditioner of Panasonic company from Op No.2 on 25.04.2022 vide bill No.2556 for a sum of Rs.36,500/-; that the air conditioner was having one year warranty with 10 year’s warranty of compressor; that the air conditioner was not giving proper cooling after its installation, therefore, the complainant lodged many complaints with Ops on toll free numbers besides lodging complaint with customer care on 28.02.2023, 15.04.2023, 17.04.2023 vide job sheet ID No.R15042319669087; that thereafter the complainant also lodged online complaints but despite that his grievance was not redressed; that the complainant kept on requesting the Op to put the air conditioner in working condition but they refused to do so. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly   amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant in evidence, has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A with documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.

2.                          Ops did not appear before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.07.2023.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

4.                          Undisputedly, the complainant had purchased the air conditioner on 25.04.2022 from Op No.1 vide Annexure C1. The complainant has come with the plea that the air conditioner in question was not giving proper cooling since its installation and regarding this he lodged many complaints with Ops (Annexure C4). The complainant in support of his contentions has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit besides the affidavit of one Ravi Kumar (Ex.CW2/A) mechanic.  The complainant had purchased the air conditioner on 25.04.2022 and lodged the complaint with the Op for the first time on 28.02.2023 i.e. after 10 months of its installation. Had there been any manufacturing defect, the product in question would not have worked for 10 months without even a single complaint. Since the pleadings and contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the complainant remained unrebutted but it does not mean that the complainant is free from discharging the burden which lies upon him to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence that the product was having manufacturing defect since its installation, therefore, the complaint deserves acceptance partly. The complainant had used the air conditioner for about 10 months, so, keeping in view the case law decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in first appeal No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.05.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of air conditioner be ordered to be refunded after making 30% depreciation of the same. 

5.                           Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby partly allow the present complaint with a direction to the OPs to refund Rs.25500/- (70 % of the total billed amount Annexure C1) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days failing which the awarded amount would carry 12 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 

6.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                                Dated: 06.05.2024

                                                                           

          (K.S.Nirania)                    (Harisha Mehta)                        (Rajbir Singh)                                

         Member                               Member                                               President