Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/459

Chetan Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Akash Bhalla Adv.

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                            Complaint No:  459 of 03.08.2015                                                                    Date of Decision: 31.01.2017.

 

Chetan Sood          son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, resident of House No.13-X, G.B.S. Flat, Manakwal, Ludhiana.

                                                                                ..… Complainant

                                                  Versus

1. Panasonic India Private Limited, having its Head Office at First Floor, ABW Tower, Iffco Chowk, Sector-25, Gurgaon, though its Managing Director.
2. Panasonic India Private Limited, having its Registered Office at No.88, 6^th Floor SPIC Building Annex, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai, through its Director/Managing Director.
3. M/s. Mehtab Motor and Trading Company, Main Market, Model Town, Ludhiana through its Prop./Partner/Authorized person.

…..Opposite parties 

                              Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh. Akash Bhalla, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2            :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

For OP3                           :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he purchased one Panasonic AC through  invoice bearing no.33 dated 06.05.2015 for sum of Rs.25,000/- f5rom OP3. After one week of the purchase, said AC stopped cooling. Complainant approached OP3, who asked him (complainant) to approach OP1 and Op2. Thereafter telephonic complaint was lodged at customer care service centre of OP1 and OP2 vide complaint No.R14051595604 dated 14.05.2015. Some officials of OPs visited premises of complainant and checked and repaired the AC. One day thereafter again AC stooped cooling. Complainant again lodged complaint vide No.R180515119913 dated 18.05.2015. Some officials of Ops again visited premises of complainant and checked and repaired the AC. However said AC stopped cooling and complainant lodged complaint vide complaint No.R21051545663 dated 21.05.2015. No official of OP1 and OP2 visited premises of complainant this time. Complainant again lodged complaint vide No.R27051587246 dated 27.05.2015. On 29.05.2015, one official visited the premises of complainant and after checking AC, disclosed as if there is some manufacturing defect in it, which cannot be removed/repaired. Thereafter, complainant again approached Ops for disclosing them that AC is well within guarantee/warrantee and as such, the same should be replaced. That request was turned down. That is alleged to be an act of gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Ops because faith of the customer in reputed company stood eroded. Legal notice dated 30.05.2015 was served through counsel, but despite that Ops failed to accept the genuine and legitimate request of complainant regarding replacement of the AC. Complainant claims to have suffered harassment and as such, compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1 Lac even claimed with interest. Replacement of AC also sought.

2.                 In joint written statement filed by OP1 and OP2, it is mentioned that AC in question was perfectly working because gas pressure was proper, when service engineer last visited premises of complainant in June 2015. Only problem in AC in question was that it was not installed at proper place because heat load was excess inside the shop, where the AC unit was lying installed. AC in question is of 1 ton in capacity, but minimum requirement of the premises was of 1.5 Ton. That fact was brought to the notice of complainant by the service engineer, who visited. Even OPs wrote letter dated 17.07.2015 to complainant for explaining this fact. That letter was sent through speed post and was duly received by the complainant. It is claimed that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction because permission of the Forum for institution of the instant complaint was not sought, despite the fact that Ops are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is claimed that on 14.05.2015 only general free service was provided for the AC. No problem was reported by the complainant at that time. On inspection by service engineer, it was found that QC was not installed at proper place as referred above. Company engineer Sh. Paramjit Singh visited the shop of complainant in June 2015 to check the AC and he observed that there was no problem in the working of AC, but problem was of not installing the AC at proper place as referred above. Warrantee was for one year from the date of purchase, but subject to the terms and conditions duly mentioned in the warrantee card. Service engineer from service centre of Ops always attended the complaint lodged by the complainant and no problem in the working of AC was found. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and nor he claims the supplied AC of inferior quality. No authenticated report of the expert or qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of allegations has been produced and as such, claim cannot be allowed. Relief of replacement of AC is not permissible as per terms and conditions of the warrantee because the same permissible only, if defect developed during period of warrantee and is of such a nature that it cannot be cured or repaired. In case the defect develops after the expiry of warrantee period, then OPs will not be responsible the same. In this case there is no defect in the AC, but only problem is of under capacity of the AC because AC of bigger capacity required to be installed in the shop in question. As and when complaint lodged by the complainant with customer care centre, those were duly attended and as such, the complaint alleged to be filed with malafide intention of extorting money from Ops by dragging them in unwarranted litigation. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                 The complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex. C5 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Rahul Nagpal, Branch Service Incharge at Ludhiana along with document Ex. R1 and then closed evidence. OP3 is exparte in this case.

5.                 Written arguments submitted by counsel for complainant and oral arguments of counsel for parties heard.  Record carefully gone through.

6.                 Purchase of AC in question took place through invoice Ex. C1 from OP3 for consideration of Rs.25,500/- on 06.05.2015. Ex. C2 is the notice sent by complainant through counsel to Ops through postal receipts Ex. C3 to Ex. C5. Except this no other evidence produced by the complainant. no report of expert produced to establish that there is any manufacturing defect in the AC in question. As and when the allegations of manufacturing defect leveled, then those can be proved by producing the expert or the report of technical expert. Non production of such expert or any report leads to the inference that complainant has failed to establish the manufacturing defect in the AC in question.

7.                 After going through the complaint, it is made out that on lodging of the complaints on 14.05.2015, 18.05.2015, 27.05.2015, officials of the Ops visited the premises of complainant for checking and doing the necessary repairs. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of ops because the services were provided as and when complaint lodged. If on complaint of 21.05.2015 no official of OP1 and OP2 visited premises of complainant, then the same does not make any deficiency because on the subsequent lodging of the complaint on 27.05.2015, one official of Ops visited premises of complainant on 29.05.2015 as per case of complainant himself. Delay of 8 days in visiting the premises after lodging the complaint is not such a ground as to amount to deficiency in service because during peak season sometimes official takes time in making such visits.

8.                 Ops have produced on record letter Ex. R1 along with affidavit Ex. RA of the Branch Service Incharge for establishing that Mr. Paramjit Singh, engineer on visit to the premises of complainant found that the installed AC was working well. Grill temperature maintained at the time of that visit was on 13^o  C and return temperature was 26^o  C. At that time outside temperature was 45^o C. As per that letter Ex. R1 dated 17.07.2015 sent to complainant by Ops, heat load was found excessive at the place of installation of the unit. As per heat load, unit installed should have capacity of 1.5 Ton minimum for maintaining the room temperature. However, installed AC is of 1 ton undisputedly and as such, Ops able to establish that though working of the AC is proper, but the installation of AC is at improper place because the heat load is excessive at that place. So oral and written submission advanced by the counsel for complainant has no force that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Rather the contents of complaint and above discussion as well as affidavit Ex. CA of complainant even establish that due services were provided to the complainant time and again, but the installed AC was having less capacity for maintaining the room temperature at the place, where it was got installed. Despite letter Ex. R1 of 17.07.2015, complainant has not chosen to get the AC of due capacity installed and as such, fault lays with complainant.

9.                 As a sequel of above discussion, complaint deserves dismissal and same is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                         (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:10.01.2017.

Gobind Ram.