Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/353/2021

Virender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic Smart Factory Solutions India (Division Company of Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.) - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/353/2021
Date of Institution	:	28/05/2021
Date of Decision	:	04/02/2022

 

Virender Kumar, S/o Late Sh.Gopal Singh, Resident of H.No.551, Sector-11B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Panasonic Smart Factory Solutions India (Division Company of Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.), 12^th Floor, Ambience Tower-I, Ambience Island NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002, India Tel-+91-0124-4751300.
2. G.M. Trading, (GST:04AA0FG7779A1Z8), SCO-1092, Sector-22B, Chandigarh, Tel-0172-5000812, 8558820062.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant.
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant had purchased a Panasonic Air Conditioner- SAC 2019 CS-KU18VKYT was Rs.35,500/-from Opposite Party No.2 on 27.04.2019. Copy of the said bill is annexed as Annexure C-1. The AC was not cooling due to which the complainant called the customer care number of Opposite Party No.1 on 29.05.2020. As per complaint, the representative engineer of OPs visited his premises to check the fault in the AC and fixed as per his own knowledge and skill and also informed the complainant that AC is in warranty and AC worked fine for some time afterwards. As per complaint, when again he switched on the AC, it was again found that the AC was not functioning properly and out of anguish, the complainant called on the customer care number of Opposite Party No.1 on 28.04.2021. The engineer came to check the fault and informed the complainant that AC has a fault in it since day one due to which there is a leakage in compressor resulting in the AC not being able to function properly and also informed him it would cost around Rs.5,000/- to repair the AC since there is a major fault in the compressor.

         The Opposite Party No.1 provides warranty card which is annexed as Annexure C-2. While their own representative engineer is admitting the AC has a defect since day 1 amounts to Res ipsa Loquitur and proves the complainant case that he has been defrauded by both the parties. Hence, the present consumer complaint.

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite following proper procedure therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 25.11.2021.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.     We have heard the complainant and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.     It is evident from Annexure C-1, the copy of the retail invoice that the complainant purchased one AC, after paying an amount of Rs.35,500/-. As per the case of the complainant, despite being the product in warranty, the (Opposite Party No.2) the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 is asking for Rs.5000/- to repair the AC. Since there is fault in compressor and as per the warranty card Annexure C-2, the compressor is having warranty of 5 years, but in the present case it is out of understanding that why Opposite Party No.2 wants to charge money when the manufacturer gives appropriate warranty of 5 years for the compressor of the AC in question. We are of the opinion that the complainant purchased the product in question with the trust in the brand and not for running from pillar to post. It is the negligent attitude of the Opposite Parties which forced the complainant to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. 
6.     Significantly, Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7.     Hence the act of the Opposite Parties for non-providing proper services within warranty period and most importantly non-appearing during the proceedings of the present case, certainly proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.   
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To repair the AC in question perfectly/completely without charging any cost.
2. to pay an amount of ₹3000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹2000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining direction.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/02/2022	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rajan Dewan]
Ls	Member	Member	President