Order No. 12 / Dated 30/03/2016.
Complainant Debjani Chatterjee by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased a Panasonic AC machine being Model No. CS-YC 24RKY3 from Khosla Electronics by paying a sum of Rs. 43,500/- on 12.03.2015 and the same was installed at the residence of the complainant on 19.03.2015.
But just after two months, the AC machine stopped functioning and first complaint was lodged on 22.05.2015 (Doc. No. R 220515151982) and ultimately compressor of the outdoor unit was changed on 04.06.2015 by service mechanic of Panasonic and the machine again started functioning after a long gap of 14 days.
But subsequently the AC machine again stopped functioning and second complaint was lodged on 14.09.2015 (Doc. No. R140915398340) and again service mechanic of Panasonic came to complainant’s residence and did some repairing work in the connecting wire of internal and external unit of AC machine and the connecting wire was permanently damaged by that process. However, the AC machine again started functioning.
But again the AC machine stopped functioning and 3rd complaint was lodged on 28.09.2015 (Doc. No. R 280915467591) and on the basis of of the complaint, the service engineer of Panasonic Company visited the residence of complainant and suggested for replacement of compressor again, change of main cord IDU-ODU by a single wire and some other suggestions and Panasonic Company sent the replacement compressor 1st on 08.10.2015 and again on 14.10.2015. But both the compressors were found mismatched with the outdoor unit and the service mechanic of Panasonic Company failed to start the AC machine again on both the days.
Further on 08.11.2015, three mechanics of Panasonic Company came to complainant’s residence with another compressor and they replaced the defective compressor by a new one, but failed to start the AC machine although the service engineers tried their level best for a period of near about four hours.
Subsequently a letter was submitted by the complainant to the Panasonic Company on 14.11.2015 demanding replacement of total AC machine by a brand new one and new warranty to be started from the date of installation within 15 days and the time limit of 15 days has already been over on 29.11.2015 but no initiative for replacement of AC machine had been taken by Panasonic Company.
In the above circumstances, for negative attitude of the op and also for negligent and deficient manner of service, further not discharging their liabilities, complainant prayed for redressal by directing the op to refund the entire price amount of the AC machine or replacement of the AC machine with warranty period and also for compensation etc.
On the other hand Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. appeared by filing Vokalatnama on 06.01.2016 along with written version and that was allowed and written version was ultimately filed by the op no.1 on 10.02.2016.
In the written version op has submitted that no doubt complainant purchased one AC machine being the said model manufactured by op no.1 from the op no.2 on 12.03.2015 and same was duly delivered and installed on 19.03.2015 and machine has a warranty for one year for entire product and four years only for the compressor.
It is also appeared that complaint was lodged by the complainant on 22.03.2015 when the said machine stopped functioning and subsequently compressor of the AC machine changed and thereafter the machine started. But again stopped functioning and complainant lodged a complaint to op no.1 and service engineer came to the residence of complainant and repaired it. Thereafter on the basis of the complaint dated 28.09.2015, service engineer of the op inspected the AC machine and on 08.11.2015 replaced the defective compressor and further for replacement there was mismatch and as such AC machine did not function and the service engineer failed to start the AC machine.
Further complainant did not allow the service engineer of op to install such compressor in the AC machine when the service engineer wanted to install a new compressor. The present complainant demanded a fresh AC machine of new brand with fresh warranty. But the op will not ready to give new branded AC machine with fresh warranty time and the answering op was not allowed by the complainant at the residence of complainant and in the above circumstances, op has prayed for such relief and allow the op to make the AC machine repair at complainant’s residence and pass such necessary order.
Decision with reasons
On our depth study of the complaint and written version and also the answer given by the complainant and further considering the materials, it is found that in all cases as and when the complaint is made by the complainant regarding stop of the AC machine, op’s engineer forthwith attended and repaired. But it is admitted by the op that they wanted to replace the compressor and they carried away two compressors. But same are found mismatched for which the service engineers of the op asked the complainant to wait and that shall be repaired after matching compressor. But it is the allegation of the op that two new compressors which were found mismatched of the complainant’s AC machine was detained by the complainant. But about that complainant has failed to deny it.
Then it is clear that two mismatched new compressors are in the custody of the complainant and that was not the duty of the complainant to detain it. But fact remains that it was detained. But op has admitted that they are always willing to replace the defective compressor and make the said machine workable and usable.
Considering the above fact and circumstances, it is found that no doubt there is manufacturing defect in respect of the compressor including the said set for which just after purchase one after another instance, the compressor was found not functioning and complainant was compelled to file complaint one after another. No doubt it was attended by the op but they failed to repair the same.
Considering that fact it is proved that the purpose of purchase AC machine during hot time was frustrated for not restoring the life of the said AC and for not functioning which is proved. But at the same time it is proved that complainant has detained two compressors which were carried away by the service engineers of the op for the purpose of replacement. But after replacement it was found that same was not matched for which they asked the complainant that they shall have to come again. But complainant and family members detained the compressors and such an act on the part of the complainant is not tolerable and it is found unwarranted.
But on overall evaluation, it is found that as per warranty it is the duty of the company either to replace a new machine at once or to refund the entire price amount of Rs.43,500/- to the complainant and if op replaces the present defective machine by a new one along with fresh warranty, in that case invariably complainant’s grievance shall be properly redressed. If op does not want to replace it by a new one with fresh warranty, in that case op company shall have to pay the entire price amount of Rs.43,500/- and also shall have to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the sufferings of the complainant during whole hot season because complainant purchased it for the purpose of enjoying the cool breeze of the AC machine during hot time, but very purpose of purchase has been frustrated and truth is that the defect was there and that defect could not be removed by the op even after repeated attempts.
In view of the above findings, we are convinced to hold that a defective machine was sold by the op company through their dealer op no.2 for which op no.1 is liable to pay compensation and also litigation cost, because it was the corporate responsibility on the part of the op no.1 forthwith to replace the same by a new one, but that has not been done. But they only tried to change the compressor.
Fact remains that even after change of compressor the vital defect cannot be removed. So, it was the duty and responsibility on the part of the op no.1 to replace the same by a new one with fresh warranty but that has not been done. So it is no doubt unfair practice on the part of the op no.1 for which this present complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op no.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/- and same is dismissed against op no.2 (the seller) without any cost.
Op no.1 is hereby directed to replace a new machine in place of defective one along with fresh warranty to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and in case if op no.1 fails to replace the same by a new one with fresh warranty, in that case op shall have to refund the entire price amount of Rs.43,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Further for causing mental pain and sufferings and also for adopting delatory practice and further for deceitful manner of trade, op no. 1 shall have to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
If op no.1 wants to comply the first part of the order by replacing a new one with fresh warranty, in that case, complainant shall have to handover the defective machine along with two compressors which has been detained by the complainant and if op no.1 wants to comply the second alternative part of the order, in that case complainant shall have to hand over the defective AC machine along with two compressors which are detained by the complainant to the op no.1 and ops shall have to handover the entire amount with decretal amount in cash in presence of this Forum to this complainant and it must be complied by the parties within one month from the date of this order.
Op no.1 is further directed to submit a report after one month about the compliance of the order of this Forum and also complainant shall have to comply the order by submitting a report that he has complied the specific direction of this Forum regarding return of the AC machine and also two compressors which was detained by the complainant.
If it is found that complainant is unwilling to refund the two compressors along with defective AC machine, in that case op no.1 shall have to report before this Forum and then necessary order shall be passed in this regard.
But if complainant complies the part of this order, in that case, op no.1 shall have to comply his part of this obligation as per this Order and in default, penal action shall be started against the op no.1 for which further penalty and fine may be imposed.
