Haryana

Sonipat

CC/60/2016

Balbir Singh S/o Mange Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Balbir

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                  Complaint No.60 of 2016

Instituted on: 25.02.2016                                                      

Date of order:  14.06.2016

 

 

Balbir Singh son of Mange Ram, Gali no.3, Malik Colony, Gohana road, Sonepat.

…Complainant.        Versus

 

1.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Spic Building Annexe 6^th Floor no.88, Mount road, Guindy Chennai-600032.

2.Pepsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Batra Plaza, Gurudwara road, Geeta Bhawan Chowk, Sonepat.

                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Complainant in person

          Respondent no.2 ex-parte.

          Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, Adv. (Karnal) for

respondent no.1.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

 

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 9.5.2015 he has purchased one Air Conditioner worth Rs.27500/- from the respondent no.2.  But after 10 days of its purchase, there was no cooling.  The complainant has made complaints on 24.6.2015, 6.7.2015 with the request to repair the same, but of no use.  The complainant also wrote a letter dated 9.7.2015 to the respondents with the request to replace the defective AC with new one, but of no use. This wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent no.1 has appeared and filed their reply, whereas respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that till date, the answering respondent has not received even a single complaint from the complainant regarding defects in the unit.  However, after installation of the AC, the complainant for the first time has made a complaint in the month of 6/2015 and the unit was repaired and gas charging was done and unit was made OK.  The company provides the warranty for one year, but the warranty of the unit  means the repairs not replacement.   The letter of the complainant was duly replied.  The complainant is not entitled for the replacement of the AC with new one as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.       In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the AC from the respondent no.2 on 9.5.2015 worth Rs.27500/-.

         The plea of the complainant is that there was manufacturing defect in the AC and for rectification of the defects, he has approached the respondents so many times and he has also sent the letters to the respondents, but it has not brought any fruitful result.

         In the written statement, it is admitted by the respondent no.1 that in the month of June, 2015 the complainant has lodged the complaint and the letter of the complainant was also replied vide reply dated 26.9.2015.

         The complainant has purchased the AC on 9.5.2015 and he has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 25.2.2016 i.e. within 9 months from the date of its purchase.

         We have perused the evidence led by the complainant very carefully and this evidence of the complainant is sufficient to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 as they have supplied the defective AC to the complainant.  When the complainant has approached the respondents regarding defective AC, then it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to replace the same with new one, but it was no done so by the respondents.  Thus, we accept the present complaint with the directions to the respondents to replace the defective Air conditioner of the complainant with new one and to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.two thousand for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The complainant is also directed to return the defective AC to the respondents.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                         (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                        President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                              Sonepat.

 

Announced 14.06.2016