Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/708/2019

Parkash Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic Energy India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/708/2019
Date of Institution	:	16/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	11/01/2021

 

 

Parkash Kaur  W/o Sh. Mangal Singh, R/o H.No.338, Phase-II, Mohali.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Panasonic Energy India, through its Incharge/Manager having Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurugram – 122002 (Haryana).

 

2.      Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd., Authorized Service Center, through its Incharge/Head, Shop No.105, IInd Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.      M/s G.M. Trading, through its Manager/Proprietor, SCO No.321, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

PRESENT:	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
	:	Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant purchased a Panasonic Air Conditioner (Model No. SAC 2018 CS LC18UKY) from Opposite Party No.3 on 17.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.34,500/- vide bill Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that soon after its purchase, the said Air Conditioner started giving troubles. The Complainant lodged numerous Complaints with Opposite Party No.2 regarding the defect in the Air Conditioner and on each & every occasion Opposite Party No.2 rectified the defect, but the same resurfaced again after 2-3 days. According to the Complainant, since the Air Conditioner has some manufacturing defect, she requested the Opposite Parties to replace the same, but the Opposite Parties did not accede to her request. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 04.10.2019.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case, have pleaded that the allegations in the Complaint have been made in air without any basis, rhyme or reason, inasmuch as, the Complaint is not supported by any expert evidence and when they visited the Complainant for providing repair & assistance as per the warranty terms & conditions, the Complainant refused the offer and was adamant on getting the Air Conditioner replaced. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
6.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the Complainant purchased one Panasonic Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.34,500/- on 17.07.20218. The allegation of the Complainant is that the product in question started giving problems soon after its purchase, therefore, various Complaints were lodged with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, but they failed to set right the defect. Eventually, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were requested to replace the defective Air Conditioner, but to no avail.
7.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is that the Air Conditioner was purchased on 17.07.2018 for Rs.34,500/- and after receiving first Complaint from the Complainant on 27.05.2019, a service request/job-sheet (Annexure R-1) was created by the Customer Care, which was attended by the Authorized Service Centre on the same day and the unit was made functional after gas charging for which the Complainant signed the job-sheet.  It has been urged that since there is no manufacturing defect in the product in question, as alleged by the Complainant, therefore, they are not liable for any deficiency in service.
8.         After appraising the entire record, it is evident that per Annexure R-1 job-sheet dated 27.05.2019 the defect in the product was “outdoor gas leakage”, which was set-right by gas charging and the unit was made functional. Importantly, the said document is signed by the Complainant. Per averments made in the Complaint, the Complainant has made many Complaints regarding the Air Conditioner, however, she has not attached any job-sheet to substantiate the same. Further, the Complainant has miserably failed to establish her Complaint that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of manufacturing defect has persisted in the Air Conditioner as neither any Expert Report nor any other convincing material has been placed on record. We are of the concerted opinion that allegations of manufacturing defect cannot be taken as a gospel truth merely on the statement of the Complainant rather, the same is required to be proved beyond doubt by means of credible documentary evidence, which the Complainant has failed to produce. In the absence of which, no relief can be granted to the Complainant. Needless of mention that the Air Conditioner in question was repaired by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, without charging anything, under the warranty conditions. Hence, it is safe to deduce that there is not even an iota of evidence that the Air conditioner in question is suffering from any defect, much less manufacturing defect. Thus we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11^th Jan., 2021

                        Sd/-  

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”