DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 595/2016
Date of Institution : 22.07.2016
Date of Decision : 17.08.2017
Satpal aged about 80 years son of Sh. Parmasri Dass resident of # B-XI/639, Pharwahi Bazar, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
Complainant
Versus
Registered Office: Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 6th Floor, SPIC Building Annexe, o. 88, Mount Road, Guindy, Channai-600032 Through MD/DM/Manager/ Suresh Kumar Bandi Head Sales and Marketing Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.
Corporation Office Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 31 First Floor, Echelon Institutional Area, Sector-32, Gurgaon- 122 001 Through MD/DM/Manager.
Vikas Electronics, Pharwahi Bazar, Barnala-148101 through Manager/Proprietor.
Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajiv Goyal Counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Sandhu Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
Opposite party No. 3 exparte.
Quorum:-
Shri S.K. Goel : President
Shri. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Satpal son of Sh. Parmasri Dass has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., and others(hereinafter called as the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Air Conditioner Panasonic 1 Ton Split through invoice No. 99 dated 11.5.2013 manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 from the opposite party No. 3 against Rs. 27,500/- for his domestic use. At the time of purchasing said Air Conditioner, the opposite parties gave warranty of 5 years to the complainant against any fault and the user's manual book was also given. That about 4-5 months back suddenly the Air Conditioner stopped cooling and the Air Conditioner door is not properly closed and this is a manufacturing defect. Therefore, complaints Nos. R 120815220893, R 12081520901, R 21041617166, R 120815220936, R 080615058281 were lodged with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and an employee from the opposite parties came 2-3 times to check the same. The mechanic repaired the Air Conditioner and it started to work but not properly. Again on 9.4.2016 the Air Conditioner stopped cooling and the complaint was lodged with the opposite parties. But this time no one came from the side of opposite parties to repair the same. The complainant many times visited the showroom of opposite party No. 3 and requested him to repair the same as it is within warranty period, but in vain. It is alleged that the temperature in the Air Conditioner is high and it was difficult for the complainant and for his family members to handle the minor children in these hot days. Thereafter, the complainant also served a legal notice dated 9.6.2016, but no reply was given by the opposite parties. Thus, it is alleged that it is clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To replace the said Air Conditioner with the new one or pay the amount of Rs. 27,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed a joint written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, concealing material facts and in the absence of any independent expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. On merits, it is denied that opposite parties have given warranty of 5 years. In fact the warranty is only of one year and additional 4 years warranty is for compressor only. However, it is submitted that complaints Nos. R120815220893, R12081520901 & R120815220936 were lodged on 8.12.2015 and complaint No. R080615058281 was lodged on 6.8.2015. On both the occasions service engineer visited and checked the Air Conditioner and diagnosed the problem in the compressor, the service engineer asked for original purchase bill/invoice/original warranty card of the Air Conditioner, which the complainant failed to produce. Hence, the replacement of compressor could not be covered under warranty and repair was to be done on chargeable basis. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. The opposite party No. 3 was duly served, but no one has come present on his behalf and was proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, copy of bill Ex.C-3, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Nagpal Ex.O.P1.2/1 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. The first point is to be determined whether the Air Conditioner in question is having a manufacturing defect and therefore, it is liable to be replaced with a new one or to refund the price of the said Air Conditioner.
9. In order to prove this point, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein he has reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint. Apart from his affidavit, he has placed on record invoice dated 11.5.2013 Ex.C-3 showing the purchase of Air Conditioner for Rs. 27,500/-. It is also the case of the complainant that in the year 2016 i.e. about after three years, the Air Conditioner stopped cooling and therefore the complainant approached the opposite parties to send some engineers and made the Air Conditioner OK. However, again on 9.4.2016 the Air Conditioner stopped cooling and thereafter the opposite parties did not care to repair the same. On the basis of said evidence, it is contended that there was a manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner and therefore the same is liable to be replaced with a new one or to refund the price of Air Conditioner.
10. On the other hand, the opposite parties have specifically denied any manufacturing defect. It is further contended that in the absence of any expert evidence, it cannot be held that the Air Conditioner was suffering from manufacturing defect.
11. Admittedly, the complainant has not placed on record any technical report to show that the Air Conditioner in question is suffering from manufacturing defect. Moreover, no affidavit or any document has been placed on record of the official of the opposite parties to prove the plea that the said Air Conditioner in question was not repairable and it was having manufacturing defect.
12. In case Sushila Automobiles Versus Dr. Birendra Narain and others 3 (2010) CPJ-130 (NC) wherein it was observed as.-
“At the very outset, it may be stated that to establish the claim for the total replacement by a new vehicle, the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert automobile/mechanical engineer that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. Opinion of an expert body in such cases would be an essential in put. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission in a number of cases have held that unless this onus is satisfactorily discharged by the complainant, the liability of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts. When the present case is considered in his backdrop, it cannot be said that the complainant has been able to satisfactorily prove his case of the car suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. Merely because the car has been taken to the workshop of the petitioner-dealer several times or because a number of letters/complaints had been addressed to various functionaries and authorities of the opposite party- manufacturing company, it will not by itself amount manufacturing defect.”
13. Further in case Jose Philip Mampilli Versus Premier Automobiles Ltd. and Another , I (2004) CLT-855 the principle of law laid down was to the effect that the manufacturer could not be ordered to replace the car or refund its price, merely because some defects appear, which could be rectified or defective parts could be replaced under warranty.
14. On the basis of the above discussion and citations as referred to above, this Forum is of the view that the complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defect, therefore, the opposite parties are not under obligation to replace the said Air Conditioner in question or to refund the price of the same.
15. Now the next question arises whether the Air Conditioner in question is liable to be repaired and it is within the warranty period. In the complaint the complainant has alleged that the opposite parties have given the warranty of five years and also a manual book was given to him. In the written version the opposite parties have specifically stated that there was a warranty of one year and additional four years warranty is for compressor only. It is also submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant has not placed on record the original bill/original warranty card to show that the warranty was for five years. In the absence of any original bill/warranty card it cannot be held that the warranty was for five years. However, it is admitted in the written version by the opposite parties that the Air Conditioner was having a warranty of one year and additional warranty of four years for compressor. The complainant has approached the opposite parties in the year 2016 i.e. within four years. Therefore, the case qua the compressor is covered under warranty. Even in the written version, opposite parties specifically stated that they are only liable to repair/rectify the product in question as per warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in warranty card.
16. In another case III (2016) CPJ-126 Rahul Bank Versus Dell India Pvt. Ltd and Another, a Laptop was purchased by the complainant and the complainant within the warranty period approached the seller for repair but repair was not done. District Forum directed to repair the Laptop of the complainant without fail or replace it if it cannot be repaired. The Hon'ble State Commission also confirmed the view of the District Forum.
17. In view of the law laid down in the above said citations this Forum is of the view that the opposite parties cannot refuse the repair of the compressor of Air Conditioner in question free of charge.
18. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted against the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to the extent that the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to repair the compressor of Air Conditioner in question of the complainant free of charge within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. If they find that some parts of the compressor cannot be made in working condition and it is beyond repair then the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to replace the said defective parts with a new one. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
17th Day of August, 2017.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member.
