Haryana

Karnal

CC/309/2020

Jasvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bhaskar Bhalla

15 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 309 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.21.08.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 15.12.2021

 

Jasvinder Singh aged 43 years son of Shri Gurdial Singh resident of 4199/1138A, Gali no.8, Shiv Colony, Karnal.

 

                                                …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12^th floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-9, Gurugam, Haryana, 122002 through its Manager.

 

2.     G.S. Electronics, House no.174, opposite Patanjali Store, Model Town, Karnal through its Proprietor/ Partner. (Authorised Service Centre Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.)

 

3.     Jannat, 139, Kunjpura Road, Karnal (Authorized Dealer Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.)

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

Argued by:   Shri Mohit Sachdeva, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Vikas Yadav, counsel for OP no.1.

Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased a Panasonic 336 Ltr., Shining Silver, Double Door Refrigerator for an amount of Rs.30,500/-, vide bill invoice no.R-512 dated 11.07.2019 from the OP no.3. OP no.3 is the authorized dealer of OP no.1, OP no.1 is the manufacturer of the said refrigerator and OP no.2 is the authorized service centre of the company. Complainant purchased the said refrigerator through Bajaj Finance and the EMIs of the same have been cleared and NOC has also been issued by the Bajaj Finance Company. The said refrigerator started giving trouble from the inspection of its purchase. There was cooling problem in the refrigerator. The complainant many times told about the said problem to the OP no.3 but he did not pay any heed to the requests of complainant. In the month of March, 2020 complainant contacted the OP no.3, the official of OP no.3 provided a Toll free number of the OP no.1. Then complainant lodged his complaint with OP no.1 regarding the defective working of the refrigerator. But due to dismay of the complainant the Lockdown period due to Pandemc Covid-19 had started. The Engineer of OP no.2 visited the premises of complainant on 26.06.2020 and repaired the refrigerator. The refrigerator again stopped working and complainant lodged his complaint with OP no.1 on the Toll free number. Service engineer of OP no.2 again visited the premises of complainant and repaired the refrigerator. The complainant had endorsed remarks on the job sheet that he will not get his refrigerator repaired again and again and wants replacement as the service engineers have failed to remove the inherent defects in the refrigerator. The refrigerator again stopped working and complainant again lodged a complaint with the OP no.1 on 31.07.2020. Complainant was shocked when on 06.08.2020 he received a message from the OP no.1 that the call has been cancelled whereas no person from the side of OPs has visited the complainant. Complainant made another call with the OP no.1 on 08.08.2020. Till date no service engineer or any other authorized person visited the premises of complainant for repair of the refrigerator. There was a manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on 11.07.2019, complainant purchased a 336 Ltr. Shining Silver, Double Door Refrigerator from OP no.3 for an amount of Rs.30,500/-, vide invoice no.R-512. On 31.07.2020 i.e. after a period of one year, complainant raised the first complaint regarding the non-functioning of the unit vide job sheet no.R310720001936, however, upon inspection, the service engineer of the OP no.1 found the unit working fine and therefore the complaint was cancelled by complainant. It is submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the said product. On 08.08.2020 complainant again raised a complaint regarding the non-functioning of the unit, the service engineer of the OP no.1 immediately visited the premises of the complainant and found that the unit was functioning properly and there was no defect as alleged by the complainant. It is further pleaded that whenever the complainant has raised a complaint, it has been properly addressed and resolved by the OP no.2. It is further pleaded that as per settled principles of law which states that no direction for refund of purchase price or replacement of the product can be issued where the said product is repairable. It is further pleaded that refrigerator is in perfect condition and there is nothing on record to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the same. Complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion before this Commission to prove that refrigerator is having any manufacturing defect in terms of Section 38 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, no responsibility to replace the said unit arises on the part of the OP no.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Initially, on 24.03.2021 Shri Gurmeet Singh Center Manager on behalf of OP no.2 and Shri Satnam Salesman on behalf of OP no.3 appeared and case was adjourned for filing written version on behalf of OPs no.2 and 3. Thereafter, neither none has appeared on behalf of OPs no.2 and 3 nor their written version has been filed and they proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Commission dated 24.08.2021.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill invoice dated 11.07.2019 Ex.C1, No Dues Certificate from Bajaj Finserve Ex.C2, job sheet dated 29.06.2020 Ex.C3, job sheet dated 07.07.2020 Ex.C4, Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 08.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Anuj Sharma Ex.OPW1/A and closed the evidence on 17.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a refrigerator from OP no.3, manufactured by OP no.1, vide cash memo no.R-512 dated 11.07.2019 to the tune of Rs.30,500/-. After sometimes of its purchased refrigerator creating problem as there was cooling problem. Complainant made many complaints to the OPs no.1 and 2 for repair of the refrigerator in question. The service engineer of OPs visited the premises of the complainant and repaired the refrigerator but after sometimes the same problem was occurred and complainant again lodged the complaint with the OP no.2 i.e. service centre. The service engineer of the OP no.2 visited the premises of the complainant but did not success to rectify the defect after their despite their best efforts. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times for replacement of the defective refrigerator as the same is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and was within warranty period and beyond repair but OPs failed to do so. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that complainant lodged the complaint regarding non-function of the refrigerator in question, on 31.07.2020, upon inspection the service engineer of OP no.1 found the unit working fine. On 08.08.2020 complainant again raised a complaint regarding non-functioning of the unit, the service engineer of OP no.1 visited the premises of complainant and found that the unit was functioning properly and there was no defect in the alleged product. He further argued that complainant has failed to produce on record any expert report regarding the defect in the refrigerator in question. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, on 11.07.2019 complainant had purchased a refrigerator from OP no.3, who is the authorized dealer of OP no.1 (manufacturer) to the tune of Rs.30,500/-. After sometime of its purchase the refrigerator started giving cooling problem. This fact is also admitted by the OP no.1 in its written version, that on 31.07.2020 and 08.08.2020 complainant approached the OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the company for repair of the refrigerator.

10.           In support of his allegations, complainant placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheet dated 29.06.2020 Ex.C3, copy of job sheet dated 07.07.2020 Ex.C4. As per version of the complainant refrigerator started giving cooling problem after some time of its purchase. In the month of March and April, 2020 National Lockdown was imposed in the country by the Government. So, firstly he approached the OP no.2 i.e. service centre on 29.06.2020 for repair of the refrigerator and in this regard he placed on record job sheet Ex.C3. OP no.2 repaired the refrigerator but after sometime the same problem occurred and he again approached the OPs on 07.07.2020, copy of job sheet is Ex.C4 for repair of the refrigerator, but OPs failed to rectify the defect. On the other hand as per version of the OP no.1, complainant first time approached on 31.07.2020 for repair of the refrigerator and thereafter on 08.08.2020 and after inspection of the refrigerator it will work properly and there was no defect in the refrigerator.  To prove that refrigerator was not having any defect, the onus lies upon the OPs but OPs failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.

 11.            In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that problems were started in the refrigerator within warranty period. To rebut the version of the complainant, OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte. Hence, the version of the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It has been proved from the record that the problem had occurred in the refrigerator in question from the very beginning and the refrigerator in question is defective one and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem of the complainant. Hence the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           During the course of arguments learned counsel for complainant submitted that complainant has purchased a new refrigerator and now he has no need for the refrigerator and prayed for refund of the cost of the refrigerator.

13.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.30,500/- to the complainant as cost of the refrigerator. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.3300/- for the litigation expense. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. However, complainant is directed to handover the old refrigerator to the OPs. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:15.12.2021

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       

     Member