Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1087/2016

Rohit - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.S. Jagdeva

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/1087/16
Date  of  Institution	:	22/12/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	21/11/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Rohit R/o H.No. 1132/A, Saini Vihar, Phase-III, Baltana Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab.

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

(1)  Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, 12^th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana.

 

(2)  Bhagwati Enterprise, through its Proprietor, SCF No.643, 1^st Floor, Kesho Ram Complex, Sector 45, Burail, Chandigarh.

 

(3)  Panasonic Refrigerator Service Centre, through its Service Engineer, Plot No. 42, Sector 29, Chandigarh.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate.
For OPs No.1 and 3	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Rohit (hereinafter called the Complainant) has filed this consumer complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. & Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had purchased one Panasonic Refrigerator from Opposite Party No.2, which was manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, for a total sale consideration of Rs.46,000/- vide invoice dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure C-1). The said Refrigerator was carrying a warranty of one year on complete machine and 5 years on the Compressor. On 13.08.2016, while cleaning the Refrigerator in question the Complainant noticed that its inner body started cracking and the same was increasing day by day. The matter was promptly reported to the Opposite Parties. However, when despite making efforts, the Opposite Parties failed to redress the grievance of the Complainant, he requested them on 13.08.2016 to replace the Refrigerator, but to no success. Thereafter, the Complainant even sent a number of e-mails (Annexure C-4 colly) and a legal notice (Annexure C-7) to the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to yield the desired results. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the Refrigerator has been damaged due to mishandling on the part of the Complainant and the answering Opposite Parties are ready to repair the same as per conditions of the warranty on chargeable basis. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.      Importantly, Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.

 

8.      The purchase of the refrigerator in question by the Complainant and its installation at his house have not been disputed by the Opposite Parties. It has come on record that the Opposite Parties have provided one year warranty on the unit and further four year warranty only for the compressor of the Unit. Admittedly, the defect in the refrigerator has been reported within one months of its purchase. However, the Opposite Parties refused to honour their warranty on the ground that the cracks on internal body of the refrigerator was on account of mishandling by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties maintained that the Complainant has leveled false allegations without there being any expert analysis. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as the mishandling can never damage the refrigerator from inside when there are no signs of mishandling from outside. Moreover, the photographs Annexure C-3 (collectively) placed on record by the Complainant clearly show that the refrigerator in question suffers from a manufacturing defect. In this view of the matter, we feel that no expert/technical report is required in the circumstances when the defect clearly visible to the naked eye. The case of the Complainant is squarely covered within one year warranty and he is entitled for replacement. It is highly impracticable that a reputed company like Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. is taking the refuge of the terms & conditions and warranty on the ground that cracks have been caused due to physical damage. However, the action of the Opposite Parties in denying the genuine claim of the Complainant amounts to gross deficiency in service. 

 

9.      In view of the foresaid discussions, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly & severally, as under:-

 

[a]  To replace the defective refrigerator of the complainant with a brand new one of the same make & model, with fresh warranty. 

 

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

10.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; failing which, they shall be liable to refund the cost of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.46,000/- as well as compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, besides litigation expenses as in sub-para [c] above.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21^th Nov., 2017                                                Sd/-                                                              (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

                                 

                                                               Sd/-                      

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”