ORDER

20.09.2023

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

          The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased AC from OP-2 of Panasonic Model No.CUBE-ZU20NKYP on 29.11.2014 by paying a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. On 05.04.2015, the AC in question was installed at the premises of the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that few days of installation AC stopped functioning and as such complainant lodged the complaint with Customer Care of OP-1 vide complaint no. R10515016231. It is further alleged that one mechanic visited the premises of complainant and after inspecting the AC submit that the gas has been defused and as such he refill the gas.

          After refilling of the gas the AC in question again stopped functioning, again the mechanic visited the premises and after inspecting submit that there was no gas and as such he again refill the gas in the AC. Thereafter, within few days again the AC stopped functioning and as such the complainant lodged complaint with OP-1 vide complaint no. R270515181759, R120615080547 & R240615145564. It is alleged by the complainant that the AC in question is duly covered under the warranty but desite repeated complaints no steps were taken by the OP for redressal of her grievance. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OP complainant served legal notice dated 06.07.2015 thereby calling upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on account of inconvenience cause to her as well as for replacement of AC in question with new one. Both the OPs neither reply to the legal notice nor had complied the same. The complainant therefore approached this Commission for redressal of her grievance.

Notice of the complaint was sent to both the OPs. Despite service none appeared on behalf of OP-2 as such OP-2 was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.05.2016 of Ld. Predecessor Bench. OP-1 filed its WS wherein it denied any deficiency in service on its part. OP-1 in its para wise reply admit that after receipt of the AC complaint from the complainant on 01.05.2015 service person of OP-1 visited the premises and the compressor of the AC in question was replaced on 04.05.2015. In para No.4 of its paragraph wise reply OP-1 admit that when the second complaint was received on 27.05.2015 the service person of the OP visited the premises and refill the gas in the AC in question, as there was leakage in the connecting pipe and at this juncture the connecting pipe was also replaced. Again on 12.06.2015 complaint was received from the complainant and at this juncture the stabilizer of the AC in question is replaced due to malfunction. It is stated by the OP that OP had promptly redress the grievance of the complainant as and when raised and there is no manufacturing defect in the AC in question as alleged. It is further stated that after the redressal of the grievance finally on 12.06.2015 no further complaint regarding the non functioning the AC in question was ever made by complainant till date. It is further prayed that the present complaint be dismissed with cost having no merit.

Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments.

Despite opportunity OP failed to address the arguments. The case pertains to the year 2015 as such the arguments was addressed by complainant counsel.

We have heard the arguments advance at the bar and have perused the record. The complainant has placed on record the original invoice bill dated 29.11.2014 in respect to the purchase of AC in question. She has also placed on record job sheet  in support of her contention.

Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the AC in question on 29.11.2014. The first complaint was registered by complainant on 01.05.2015 within few days of the installation of AC in question. OP-1 itself admitted in its written statement that on the first complaint the compressor was replaced, thereafter on the complaint dated 27.05.2015 gas was again refilled and gas connecting pipe was also replaced, thereafter finally the stabilizer of the AC in question was replaced by OP-1 Co. on 12.06.2015 the entire chronological events clearly establish the inconvenience faced by the complainant despite purchasing of the new AC from OP-2. It is admitted position that after redressal of the above complaints no further complaint was raised by complainant till today regarding the non functioning of the AC in question, hence, in our view the replacement of the AC in question with new one does not meet the end of justice. 

In view of the above discussion we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitle for pain and mental agony as well as the litigation cost on account of defects in the AC in question. We therefore, direct OP-1 company to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 30,000/- for pain and mental agony as well as the litigation cost suffered by her.

The OP-1 is directed to comply the order within 30 days of the receipt of the order failing which OP will be liable to pay the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 9% P.A from the date of receipt of order till realization. File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Pronounced on 20.09.2023

Sanjay Kumar                                   Nipur Chandna                                 Rajesh

President                                              Member                                             Member