Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/38/2019

Dr. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Manvinder Singh Sidhu Adv.

12 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	38/2019
Date of Institution	:	24.01.2019
Date of Decision	:	12.04.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Dr.Gurpreet Singh Bhatia aged about 48 years son of Sh.Gurcharan Singh r/o H.No.251, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Panasonic India (P) Ltd., through its VOC, Sajid Khan, 11^th Floor, Ambience Tower Island, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India.

 

2.     Panasonic Appliances India Co. Ltd., Registered Office & Factory, N.H.No.5, Sholavaram Village, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai-600067.

 

3.     Owner of DCA Marketing Showroom No.54, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

Sh.Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate alongwith the complainant in person.

                Sh.Pankaj, Authorized Agent of OPs No.1 and 2

                OP No.3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased OTG  make Panasonic bearing Model No.NBH 3200 from OP No.3 on 29.03.2017 for Rs.13,000/- , having warranty of one year. After few months, it started malfunctioning and was not able to bake properly as the upper element rods were not heating properly and as such the food was not cooked properly.  He lodged the complaint at the customer care of Panasonic Company and took the same to the complaint centre but they expressed their inability to collect oven from his house.  It has further been averred that the complaint centre used to check it and told that it seems to be working alright.  According to the complainant, the OTG is an automatic machine which has to maintain the temperature set on the screen of the OT and the same has to restart itself when the temperature decreases from the set temperature on the screen.  It has further been averred that the customer care centre used to re-lodge a new complaint when he reached there despite of his telling that it is the same old complaint which was unsolved.  Finally, he sent a detailed e-mail in this regard to the Service Head of the Panasonic.  It has further been averred that he requested the OPs several times but the OPs have failed to redress his grievance.  Finally, he got served a legal notice dated 19.04.2018 upon the OPs but to no effect.  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 complaint.
2.         Despite due service through registered post, the OP No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.03.2019.
3.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, Sh.Pankaj Authorized Representative of OPs No.1 and 2 and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         During the pendency of the complaint, Sh.Pankaj, Authorized Representative of OPs No.1 and 2 handed a demand draft in the sum of Rs.11000/- to the Counsel for the complainant towards the price of the OTG which has been accepted by him. He has further submitted that the complainant now be awarded compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. 
5.         The short grievance of the complainant has been redressed by the OPs only after the filing of the instant complaint before this Forum. It is apt to mention here that  before filing the present complaint, the complainant made repeated requests to the OPs regarding the malfunctioning of the OTG but the OPs did not pay any heed to his genuine requests. The complainant even got served a legal notice dated 11.10.2018 upon the OPs through his Counsel but they did not bother to resolve his grievance. Due to mal-functioning of the OTG, the complainant has to face the difficulty in operating the OTG.  In our considered view, it is duty of the OPs to repair/replace the product within the warranty period if the product does not function properly. In the present case, the OPs wake up from their deep slumber only after institution of the present complaint and refunded the price of the product to the complainant on 02.04.2019.  In view of the above discussion, the OPs are proved to deficient in rendering the services to the complainant. 
6.         Keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.4,000/-.
7.         In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs  to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of this order till it is paid.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12/04/2019                                                            sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER