BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 25th day of April 2018
Filed on : 19.04.2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
C.C.No. 152/2017
Between
Preeth George, Manayil House, H.No MRA-37, Kallingal Lane, Pottakuzhi Road, Mamangalam, Kochi-682 025. Rep.by her Power of Attorney M.D.Robert Milton, H/o. Preeth George @ Preethi Milton, S/o.M.A.Dominic, Manayil House, H.No.MRA-37, Kallingal Lane, Poottakuzhi Road, Mamangalam, Kochi-682 025 | :: | Complainant (By Adv. P.M. Benson, 1st Floor, Manavalan Building, Amulaya Street, Banerji Road, Ernakulam-682 018) |
And |
- Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,
Spic Building Annexe, 6th Floor No.88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032, Rep. by its Managing Director
| | Opposite parties (o.p 1 rep. by Adv.Anil Tiwari, K.S Arundas, KHCAA Chamber No. 450, Near High Court, Ernakulam, Kochi-31) |
- Bismi Appliances,
Near International Stadium, Kaloor, Kochi-682 017
| | (o.p 2) |
- Panasonic India (P) Ltd., Authorized Service Centre at Ernakulam, 28/986, Ponneth Temple Road, Kadavanthra, Pin-682 020
| | |
O R D E R
Sheen Jose, Member
- The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a Nurse working abroad and hence she has given power of Attorney to her husband to file and conduct the above complaint on her behalf. The complainant had purchased an Air conditioner -Panasonic AC SC18RKY (1.5 Ton) #43304 from the 2nd opposite party on 21.11.2016 at a price of Rs. 40,000/- which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party delivered the AC unit to the complainant’s house and one of the technicians of the 2nd opposite party installed the above said AC in the bed room of the complainant. During the trial run itself, the AC unit has not worked properly and cooling was not there in the Room. Moreover, it got cutoff after 10 to 15 minutes run. The technician of the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that after 2-3 hrs of running it will become alright automatically. But, unexpectedly, the very next day also the same defect was repeated. Then immediately husband of the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party’s show room and informed the same. Thereafter, the technician of the 2nd opposite party checked the AC and surprisingly informed that there was no sufficient gas in the unit hence the Air Conditioner Unit shows the so called complaints. Subsequently, the 1st opposite party’s technician ie., the 3rd opposite party also came along with the technicians of the 2nd opposite party and both of them together, inspected the Air Conditioner Unit and informed the complainant that, they have filled the adequate gas in the unit, and now the so called complaint will be cured. The complainant and her husband also believed the words of the technicians of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. But within a week after curing the complaints, Air conditioner Unit showed the same complaints with less cooling and automatically cutting off every 10 to 15 minutes. Subsequently the complainant could realize that she was provided a bad and defective AC unit by the opposite parties. The complainant and her husband approached the 2nd opposite party and registered a complaint with them. But, they did not rectify the defects of the AC unit even when it was under the warranty period. The complainant and her family could not use the above AC Unit in the hot climate due to its recurring defects. The complainant and her husband repeatedly approached the opposite parties for curing the defect of the AC unit. But, unfortunately despite the repeated complaints and reminders made to the opposite parties in this regard, there has been no positive response from their part. The inaction of the opposite parties to cure and replace the defective AC Unit amounted to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the opposite parties are solely answerable. The complainant is entitled to get replacement for the defective AC Unit free of cost. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties either to replace the defective Air Conditioner with new one or to refund an amount of Rs. 40,000/- being the price of the AC Unit to the complainant. He is also seeking compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
2) The complainant filed this complaint on 19.04.2017 before the Forum. In response to the notice from this Forum, the 2nd opposite party appeared before this Forum, the 2nd opposite party appeared before this Forum and the 1st opposite party was absent and set ex-parte. On 24.08.2017 the complainant had filed two I.As 441/2017and I.A.442/2017 for impleading the 3rd additional opposite party in the party array and for amending the complaint. The two I.As were allowed on 28.09.2017. Notice was issued to the 3rd additional opposite party on 28.09.2017 and notice was not served on them and it was returned as “addressee left”. The 1st opposite party filed I.A 441/2017 to set aside ex-parte order dated on 19.05.2017 and to accept the reply. The ex-parte order was set aside and the opposite party’s reply was agreed to be accepted on condition that the 1st opposite party deposit const of Rs.10,000/- to the Legal Aid Fund, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam on 28.09.2017. The 1st opposite party did not comply the above said order. The complainant had filed I.A.648/2017 on 30.11.2017 to direct the 1st opposite party to furnish the correct address of the 3rd opposite party. The above order was also not complied by the 1st opposite party. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties remained absent continuously in further proceedings of this complaint.
3) Evidence in this case consists of Ex-parte proof affidavit has been filed by the Power of Attorney of the complainant. Exbt.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Heard the Counsel for the complainant.
4) Issues came up for considerations are as follows:
- Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.40,000/ from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties being the price of the disputed AC unit?
- Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5) Issue No. (i)
The complainant had purchased a Panasonic Air conditioner AC SC18RKY 1.5 ton from the 2nd opposite party on 21.11.2016 at a price of Rs.40,000/- which was manufactured and marketed by the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. According to the complainant, the above said Air conditioner Unit showed some defects right from the beginning. During the trial run itself the AC Unit could not attain sufficient cooling in the room. The complainant approached the opposite parties for rectifying the defects. The opposite parties failed either to rectify the defects of the air conditioner Unit or to replace the same with new one even when the Air conditioner unit was covered under the warranty. Exbt.A1 Power of Attorney shows that the complainant Preeth George authorized her husband M.P.Robert Milton on behalf of her to contest the case before the Forum. Exbt.A2 retail invoice dated 21.11.2016 issued by the 2nd opposite party shows that the complainant had purchased Panasonic Air conditioner Unit from the 2nd opposite party at a price of Rs.40,000/-. Exbt.A3 is the true copy of the certificate of warranty wherein the date of issue of warranty, customer’s name, his address, invoice number, date of purchase etc.. were not mentioned. The complainant has not produced any job sheet to show that he had made a complaint to the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that the disputed AC Unit showed some defects right from the beginning. He has not produced any evidence to prove the above statement. The complainant has not taken any steps to examine the disputed AC Unit by an expert and to submit an expert Report in the matter. In the absence of any expert opinion and other substantial evidence to prove the
averments in the complaint, we are not in a position to issue an order in the matter. We also could not find any evidence to prove that there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. Therefore 1st issue is decided against the complainant.
7) Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)
Having found the issue No. (i) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide issue Nos. (ii) and (iii).
- In the result, the complaint is found liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th day of April 2018.
Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member
Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 | :: | Copy of power of Attorney |
Exbt. A2 (a) | :: | Copy of invoice issued by Bismi Appliances dated 21.11.2016 |
Exbt. A3 | :: | Copy of certificate of warranty issued by Panasonic |
Opposite party's Exhibits: Nil
Date of Despatch :
By Hand :
By Post :