Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/809

Rithu Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Kumar

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 809 of  27.11.2014

   Date of Decision            :   24.08.2015

 

Rithu Joshi, age 27, wife of Sh.Rohit Joshi son of Sh.Parshotam Lal Joshi, residents of House No.B-34/5724, Raghubir Park, Street No.8, Jassian Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.M/s Panasonic India Private Limited, Service Centre/Branch office at Address: SCO-1, 2^nd Floor, Raja Rise Tower, Near Gian Singh Rarewala Market, Near Fortune Hotel, Car Bazaar, Jammu Colony, Ludhiana, Punjab 141003, through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Panasonic India Private Limited, No.88, 6^th Floor, Consumer Sales Div., Spic Building Annexe, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032.

3.M/s Bhandari Electrovision, 464-G, BRS Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its authorized officer.

…Opposite parties

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

MS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Shy.Rajiv K.Bhatia, Advocate

For OP1 & OP2             :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Sh.N.S.Rana, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Mrs.Rithu Joshi filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that she wants to have purchased new Split Air Conditioner of Model CS-YC-18 PKY-N of Panasonic Brand manufactured by Op1, from the showroom of OP2 for Rs.33,000/- through retail invoice No.R-133 dated 8.6.2014, for domestic need. This A.C. was purchased being best in class for its cooling and electrical energy saving. After three months of such purchase, the A.C. started creating troubles because it stopped working. There was some trouble in the cooling system, due to which, OP2 was contacted, but he did not care. Rather, he procrastinate the matter. Thereafter, the complainant contacted customer care service of OP1. Service request on 11.09.2014 was registered,  but despite that Ops have not done anything. Again complaint on 23.9.2014 was registered at customer care service of OP1. Two days thereafter, the executive from the service centre of OP1, contacted the complainant and found fault in functioning of cooling of A.C.System. That executive took the indoor unit of the air conditioner for replacement by disclosing that indoor coil of AC is not working and same will be replaced. Further, he divulged the complainant that A.C. will be reinstalled within two days. Even after more than 20-22 days, complainant did not get her AC back in working condition. Thereafter, numerous requests were made to the customer care centre of OP1, but to no effect. Complainant through email dated 4.10.2014, requested OP1 to put the A.C. in working condition, but to no effect. So, deficiency in service on the part of Ops pleaded by claiming refund of sale price of air conditioner i.e. Rs.33,000/- alongwith interest @18% per month. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, mental torture and for financial loss claimed. Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses even claimed.

2.                          OP1 and OP2 filed joint written statement by claiming that complainant has concealed the material facts and complaint filed for abusing the process of law; complaint alleged to be filed for harassing and pressurizing the Ops to succumb to the unreasonable demands. A.C. in question was duly serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant during the warranty period without charging anything. Ops claimed that they are ready to replace the indoor unit of the A.C. with new one, but the complainant for reason best known to her, refused to accept that offer. This refusal was with ulterior motive. Performance of the product depends upon the handling of the same. Liability of the Ops as per the terms and conditions of the warranty is limited to the extent of setting right of the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts alone. No assurance was given to the complainant for replacement of the A.C. Admittedly, the complaint was lodged on 23.9.2014 by the complainant regarding problem in cooling and thereafter, service engineer of Ops visited the premises of the complainant. Defect in the indoor unit of the AC was rectified, but the complainant insisted upon for the replacement of the indoor unit. However, as a good will gesture, Ops agreed to replace the indoor unit of the A.C., that is why, indoor unit was removed. When the engineer of Ops visited the premises of the complainant for installing the indoor unit, then she refused to oblige and did not allow him to install the indoor unit. Complainant has not lodged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect. Even complainant does not claim the AC to be of an inferior quality. In the absence of any expert evidence regarding the defect in A.C. The claim of the complainant cannot be allowed as per this written statement as the documentary expert report has not been produced and as such, complainant fails to discharge the burden to proof placed on her. The replacement or refund is only permissible, where defect in the product develop during the period of warranty, provided defect is incurable or beyond repair. No cause of action accrued to the complainant because there was no deficiency of service or breach of contract committed by Ops. Ops or its service centre has never denied for rendering of services to the complainant. Rather the complainant refused to acknowledge the services provided by the Ops through its service engineer. Admittedly, A.C. in question was purchased from OP3 through invoice No.R-133 dated 8.6.2014 for consideration of Rs.33,000/-. Admittedly, warranty on this sold A.C. was for one year. Each and every other allegation of the complaint denied by praying dismissal of complaint.

3.                In separate written statement filed by OP3, it is pleaded interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable against OP3, particularly when no allegation levelled against him. Op3 is only a dealer for sale of the product of OP1 and OP2. Product to be sold by OP3 belongs to manufacturing company. The dealer should forward the defective product to company for getting the problem/defects resolved/rectified. Op3, being dutiful dealer forwarded the complaint to company. Op3 never refused to co-operate with the complainant. Rather Op3 provided best services to the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency in service on his part. Admittedly, A.C in question was purchased by the complainant from OP3. There is no unfair trade practice adopted by OP3. Complainant has not suffered due to the act and conduct of OP3.

4.                Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents EX.C1 to Ex.C9 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Rahul Nagpal, Branch Service Incharge of Panasonic India Private Limited and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Counsel for the OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A of Sh.Nikhil Bhandari, the Proprietor of OP3 concern and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

8.                There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the A.C. in question by the complainant from OP3, the dealer of OP1 and OP2 through retail invoice Ex.C1. Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 is emails correspondence showing that the complainant got registered complaints qua A.C. not cooling properly for the first time on 11.9.2014 and then on 23.9.2014 and thereafter, service centre executive came to the house of the complainant for taking indoor unit of the A.C., due to non working of the indoor coil. Though, promise was made for the return of the duly repaired A.C. within 1-2 days, but despite that same was not returned and that is why the complainant through Ex.C2 contemplated to initiate legal action against Ops. Through Ex.C3 dated 7.10.2014, Ex.C6 dated 17.10.2014, Ex.C7 dated 21.10.2014, Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 dated 25.10.2014, Ops undertook to resolve the problem, but despite that problem has not been resolved as per the claim of the complainant till date. Though, it is the claim of the Ops that service engineer visited the house of the complainant for reinstallation of the indoor unit, but the complainant did not allow to do so, despite that no job card produced on record to show rectification of the indoor unit. If really due rectification of the indoor unit would have been done, then after preparation of the job card, signatures of the complainant would have been obtained in token of satisfaction. That is not done and as such, claim of the Ops regarding rendering of due services is inaccurate altogether. In case, complainant would have refused to get the repair of indoor unit installed, then on the prepared job card, note to that effect would have been recorded by the concerned. That job card with such note even not produced and as such, best evidence available withheld by the Ops themselves. Correspondence pointed out detailed above, left no doubt in manner that in fact Ops are duty bound during the warranty period to rectify the defects, but did not took cudgel in repairing the indoor unit to the satisfaction of the complainant. So, certainly the complainant stood harassed mentally as well as physically, by this in action on the part of the Ops. As complainant purchased A.C. of a company of repute in hope that she will get comfort by using of the same, but she was deprived  of the same, due to in action on the part of the Ops and as such, for tremendous suffering by the complainant, OP1 and OP2 liable to saddled with compensatory costs of Rs.5000/-.

9.                OP1 and OP2 through their written statement repeatedly claimed about their readiness to replace the indoor unit of the A.C. and as such, same is itself reflect as if there was some manufacturing defect in that indoor unit and that is why they agreed for the replacement of the same. Op1 and OP2 in their written statement have claimed that this replacement of the indoor unit undertaken by them as goodwill gesture, albeit, the terms and conditions do not provide for the replacement. So, self contradictory stand in this respect taken by the Ops which is too has caused inconvenience and harassment to the complainant.

10.              Sh.Rajiv K.Bhatia, Advocate for complainant has vehemently contended that as the complainant has harassed a lot and as such, order of refund of the sale price should be ordered, particularly when the emails sent by the complainant have not been replied by the Ops. Counsel for the complainant unable to point out any terms and conditions of the contract, under which, such refund is permissible. However, replacement of the defective part is permissible as per the warranty qua which there is an admission on the part of OP1 and OP2 and as such, we ordered for replacement of the indoor unit of the A.C. in question alone.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint allowed partly in terms that OP1 and OP2 will replace the indoor unit of the A.C. in question free of costs. OP1 and OP2 will pay Rs.5000/- as compensatory damages to the complainant for her mental harassment. Rs.2500/- also allowed as litigation expenses in favour of the complainant and against OP1 and OP2. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Babita)                                  (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                   Member                                       President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:24.08.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.