Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 26.
Instituted on : 15.01.2019.
Decided on : 20.01.2022.
Naveen Kumar, aged 45 years son of Shri Kapur Chand, R/o 1004-A/19, Shakti Nagar, Green Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 12th Floor, Ambience Tower, NH-8, Ambience Island, Gurugram-122002 through its Managing Director.
- Vishwa Service Center, Authorized Service Center, Opposite Reliance Fresh Kath Mandi, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Shri Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Parmod Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a 6.5 Kg capacity Semi Automatic Top Loading Washing Machine vide invoice dated 23.12.2015 for Rs.7,790/-. The opposite parties had provided five years warranty on the product as per information provided on the website of opposite party. The washing machine delivered to the complainant had manufacturing defect and never gave satisfactory performance and its spinner motor was replaced three times firstly in January, 2017, vide service request no.R210117092166 dated 21.1.2017, second time in July, 2017 vide service request no.R270717171712 dated 27.7.2017 and thirdly vide service request no.R010718443981 dated 1.7.2018. On every occasion, the spinner motor was replaced free of charges but on 14.7.2018, the service mechanic came to the house of complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.1400/- as charge of spinner motor stating that washing machine had warranty of only two years and the replacement carried out third time was not covered in warranty. The mechanic also charged service charges of Rs.236/- from the complainant. The complainant went to the service centre of the opposite party many times and informed the above mentioned deficiencies and requested for replacement of washing machine but despite repeated assurances no reply was received from the side of opposite party. The defective Panasonic washing machine is lying useless with the complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to take back the defective washing machine and refund the amount i.e. Rs.8026/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till its realization and also to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite party. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that as per information provided by opposite party on the website, opposite party only provided with 2 years standard warranty. Service engineer visited three times. First issue was raised by the complainant on 21.1.2017, vide Job no.R210117092166, technician visited and found defect in spin motor, as product was in guarantee the unit was replaced. After replacing, the product was repaired and made it in proper working condition. Second issue was raised by the complainant on 27.7.2017 vide job No.R270717171712, technician visited and found defect in motor. The same was replaced and unit was repaired and made in proper working condition. Third time the issue was raised on 1.7.2018 vide job No.R010718443981, technician visited and found defect in spin motor. Spin motor was replaced and unit was made in proper working condition. No charges incurred by service engineer. As per customer, his unit was under 5 years guarantee but technician found that 5 years warranty was not applicable on this product. Technician made fourth visit on 14.7.2019 and asked for the cost of spin motor but customer refused to pay. The washing machine was not having any manufacturing defect as alleged. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the party of answering respondent. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs. However, opposite party no. 2 did not appear despite service. As such opposite party no. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.3.2019 of this Commission.
3. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 6.3.2020. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 7.4.2021. At the time of argument, ld. Counsel has also placed on record a document ‘Annexure-JNA’.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per Ex.C1 the machine was purchased on dated 23.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.7790/-. As per Ex.C2 job sheet has been issued by Vishwa Service Centre i.e. authorized service centre of Panasonic. As per this report the warranty of the machine was for 2 years and it is further submitted that the motor without warranty, Motor spin + wash not replaced. Meaning thereby the motor and other parts were not replaced by the service centre but at the time of arguments, the complainant pleaded that initially the respondent replaced the motor of the machine, but thereafter they removed the same on dated 14.07.2018 and issued a job sheet Ex.C2. Regarding removal of the machine they charged an amount of Rs.236 from the complainant and the service centre issued a receipt Ex.C3. The complainant placed on record some documents. Out of alleged documents, Ex.C6 & Ex.C7 are obtained from google and as per which specifications of different type of products has been placed on record. The perusal of the document Ex.C6 and booklet Model Ex.C7 shows that as per features of this model NA-W65B3RRB, “These machines enjoy 5 years warranty on the motor “. The complainant’s machine is W65B2RRB. Document Ex.C8 is comparison of machines of different models of RRB, as per which all the machine are having 2 years warranty and as per other features of machine mentioned in Ex.C6 & Ex.C7, the motor of the machine is having 5 years warranty. On the other hand, as per documents placed on record by the opposite party Ex.R1 to R3, the motor of the machine was replaced three times by the opposite parties which shows that there was problem in the motor of washing machine from the very beginning. Opposite party has also placed on record a document ‘Annexure-JN-A’ at the time of arguments, as per which the machine in question is having 2 years warranty but other features of the machine are not mentioned in this document. No booklet is placed on record by the respondent to prove the warranty of the motor. Hence as per the documents placed on record by the complainant, the motor was having 5 years warranty and the same was to be repaired/replaced free of cost by the opposite party within warranty period. But the opposite party refused to replace the motor within warranty period which shows deficiency in service on their part. As such opposite party No.1 being manufacturer of the same is liable to refund the price of machine after deducting the lump-sum depreciation of Rs.2500/- i.e. to pay Rs.5290/-(7790/- less Rs.2500/-).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complainant and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.5290/-(Rupees five thousand two hundred and ninety only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.15.01.2019 till its realisation and shall also to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pick-up the alleged disputed washing machine from the house of complainant at the time of making the payment to the complainant.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.01.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Shyam Lal, Member.
