Delhi

North East

CC/455/2014

S.C. Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

11 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 455/14

 

In the matter of:

 

		S C Arora S/o Fateh Chand Arora D-1145 Gali No.7, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-93.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.	Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd C 52, 1st Floor Phase-2 Noida Industrial Area, Noida-201301   Technoking Home Appliances A-69 Hardev Puri, 100 ft. Road, Shahdara, Delhi-32.   Also at: Technoking Home Appliances 194 Street No.14, Balbir Nagar Extn. Shahdara, Delhi-32.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :		17.11.2014 03.05.2018 11.05.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Panasonic window AC model WAC 1.5 ton three star YC1814YA manufactured by OP1 from OP2 who represented itself  as a dealer / agent of OP1, with one year full warranty for the product, vide bill no.                    R-1975 dated 29.06.2014 for an amount of Rs. 25,500/- and received it on 30.06.2016 at his residential premises. It has been submitted by the complainant that on the very first day of purchase the AC display was not working and the complaints were lodged for the same with the customer care of OP1 on 01.07.2014 12.08.2014 whose service engineer visited the premises of complainant and diagnosed PCB failure and after 11 days, the PCB was replaced. However, the AC stopped working after some time and OP1 engineer could not solve the problem and due to this the AC remained non functional and dead.  Thereafter the complainant again contacted the OP2 who gave a fresh complaint no. PI-ASC-1408-160919 dated 27.08.2014 and thereafter the OP2 service engineer stated that the compressor was blown after PCB was changed and he took the images of compressor unit and assured replacement in two days. However, nothing was done and the complainant had to lodge a fresh complaint with OP1 vide complaint no. PI-CS-1409-000971 acknowledged by help desk of OP1 vide e-mail dated 01.09.2014. Thereafter, e-mail communications were sent and a lot of follow-up mails were written by complainant on 05.09.2014, 08.09.2014 and 20.09.2014 to OP1 for refund / replacement of AC. However, OP1, vide e-mail dated 20.09.2014 offered help to the complainant only to the extent of “part replacement” and closed the case of the complainant showing indifference to woes of the complainant who  is a hard patient and continued to suffer hot and humid weather despite investing a substantial amount of his hard earned money  in a poor quality product leading to disappointed with the product performance. Moreover, the complainant has alleged that the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practices and deficiency in service wherein substandard and inferior quality product was provided to the complainant which has caused extreme hardship, mental harassment and agony to the complainant.  Therefore complainant was constrained to file the present case before this Forum for the directions to OPs jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs. 25,500/- to the complainant as cost of AC immediately and also to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain and also Rs. 5,000/- as cost of present complaint. Complainant has attached his medical treatment records pertaining to Angioplasty at Metro Hospital and Cancer Institute, Deptt of Cardiology, retail invoice vide no. R1975 dated 29.06.2014 from OP2 amounting to Rs. 25,500/- towards the purchase of Panasonic W/AC 1.5 Ton 3 Star YC 1814YA manufactured by OP1, Copies of emails by the complainant to OP1 from September 1^st 2014 to September 20^th 2014 and reply e-mail dated 20^th September 2014 from OP1 to the complainant have been attached in support of contentions of the complainant.
2. Notices were issued to OPs under section 13 of CPA on 8.12.2014 for appearance in the forum on 14.01.2015.
3. OP2 appeared but did not file written statement. OP1 filed its reply on 23.02.2015 in which OP1 stated that there was no co relation between health condition of the complainant and purchase of AC as his health records are prior to purchase of AC and the complainant is raising extraneous issues. Further the OP1 while admitting to the AC having being purchase by the complainant from OP2 denied any representation made to him to purchase the same and stated that the complainant bought it of his own volition. The OP denied that the AC was not working properly after replacement of PCB further the OP admitted that the service person of the OP1 found that the compressor of the AC was not working and as such was trying to make arrangements for a new compressor, but the complainant did not allow him to do the same. It was further submitted that OP had written an email dated 20.09.2014 to the complainant, wherein complainant was informed that the OP1 had received the compressor and the same could be replaced but the complainant didn’t accede to the request of OP1 and instead filed the present complaint. OP1 also denied that there was any problem in the working of air conditioner and that the quality of the AC was poor, inferior or sub standard as alleged by the complainant. The OP also denied indulging deficiency in service or causing hardship, agony or harassment to the complainant or entitlement of complainant to any refund of cost of AC and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of complainant in rebuttal to the written statement of OP1 and it was alleged that the OP1 is enjoying the hard earned money of the complainant, who is a senior citizen and retired government employee. Further, the complainant had purchased the AC due to his medical condition out of his limited savings and the OP is trying to cover its own wrongs without performing its parts and as such the objections of OP are not sustainable / maintainable.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant wherein his grievance in the complaint was reiterated and complainant exhibited his medical records of treatment for Angioplasty, bill / retail invoice for purchase of AC from OP2, complaints lodged with OP1 and e-mails / correspondence between complainant and OP1 in September 2014. 
6. Evidence on behalf of OP1 was filed wherein its defence taken in the written statement was reiterated and OP1 exhibited copy of e-mail dated 20.09.2014 sent to the complainant regarding offer of replacement of compressor of AC which the complainant did not agreed to and therefore OP1 had closed his case. 
7. Written arguments on behalf of complainant were filed and it was stated that the OP1 was liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest as the AC was defective ab-initio as has been admitted by OPs themselves and they did not replace the defective piece and are liable to pay cost of the AC with interest alongwith litigation expenses and compensation for harassment to the complainant.

Written arguments were also filed by OP1 wherein it reiterated its defence taken in written statement and evidence by way of affidavit to the effect of no co relation between medical report / condition of complainant and purchase of AC and interalia offer of replacement of compressor of the AC given to the complainant by OP1. The OP1 relied upon judgment passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in Omprabha Malviya Vs Godrej Photo – Me Ltd and Ors I (2012) CPJ 14 (NC) in which Hon’ble NCDRC took the view that in absence of any expert opinion on record pertaining to manufacturing defect by the complainant and failure to prove that the same had manufacturing defect, Hon’ble NCDRC upheld the order of SCDRC dismissing the complaint as just and proper.

8. We have heard the oral arguments by both the parties and have also gone through the evidence submitted by them in support of their rival contentions. During the course of arguments, the complainant submitted on 15.01.2018 before this Forum that since OP2 had already provided him with a new AC as replacement of defective one, he has no grievance left against OP2 and is only pressing his complaint against OP1 for harassment.   

The problems in the said AC started from the date of purchase from display to PCB to compressor in quick succession / back to back all within a quarter of purchase which leads to a likely conclusion that the said AC was indeed a defective one and that was the reason the OP2 replace the same without any demur.

9. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since the product was defective from the initial stage, even after replacement of PCB, it did not make it fit for use after some time and the compressor went out of order which was a manufacturing defect in the AC despite which the manufacturer did not replace the product on the complaint of the complainant and therefore the complainant refused to get the replacement of part (compressor). Therefore holding OP1 guilty of deficiency of service in manufacturing defective AC and not redressing the grievance of the complainant, we direct the OP1 (manufacturer) to pay compensation of                        Rs. 20,000/- inclusive of litigation charges to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which interest @9% p.a. shall be payable by OP1 to the complainant on the awarded amount i.e. Rs. 20,000/- from the date of filing of the present complaint till the date of realization.
10.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on  (11.05.2018)

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member