Delhi

East Delhi

CC/702/2014

RIYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANASONIC - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  702/14

 

Mohd. Riyaz

R/o H. No. 272, Kotla Village

Near Gurjar Maha Sabha

Delhi – 110 091                                                                                 ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Prince Audio & Video

E-55-A, Main Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Panasonic Appiances India Co. Ltd.

1^st Floor, ABW Toer

IFFCO Chowk, Sector – 25

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001                                                        ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 21.08.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 17.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 18.04.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Mohd. Riyaz against Prince Audio & Video (OP-1) and Panasonic Appliance India Co. Ltd. (OP-2) for deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Panasonic Refrigerator product no. A-195STWIN for a sum of Rs. 10,800/- on 15.04.2014 from Prince Audio & Video(OP-1), authorized dealer of Panasonic Appliances India Co. Ltd. (OP-2).  It has been stated that from the very beginning, the product was defective for which the complainant made complaint with respondent on 27.06.2014 vide complaint no. 147855.  He again made complaint vide complaint no. 008834 on 03.07.2014, but on both the complaints, nothing happened.  He again made complaint on 05.07.2014 vide complaint no. 030445, but the complainant did not get any satisfactory reply.  Thus,  it has  been stated that respondent have failed to provide good product and service as assured to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in the product and service on the part of respondent.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for refund of cost of refrigerator amounting to Rs. 10,800/-,               Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.         In reply of respondent no. 2, they have taken various pleas such as the complaint has been based on false, frivolous and baseless facts; all averments/ allegations/imputations contained in the complaint have been denied; there has been no deficiency on the part of respondent and they have not sold any defective refrigerator to the complainant.  It has been stated that they received complaint no. 030445 from the complainant, which was attended and it was found that the refrigerator was not working properly due to improper wiring and voltage fluctuations.   The complainant was said to be using very thin/extension plug wiring, which was not recommended technically.  Other facts have also been denied. 

            No reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP-2 has been filed by the complainant,  wherein the complainant denied all the contents of the WS and reiterated the contents of his complaint. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined herself, who has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

            In defence, respondent no. 2 have examined Shri Sushil Kumar, authorised representative of M/s. Panasonic Appliance India Co. Ltd..  He has also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the reply. 

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsels for parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The only argument, which have been advanced on behalf of OP has been that complainant was using very thin/extension plug wiring due to which there was low or high voltage from the specification protection part of compressor. 

On the other hand, Ld. counsel for complainant has argued that they were not using the thin/defective wire.  He has argued that the refrigerator supplied to the complainant was defective one. 

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the documents placed on record.  Complainant have placed on record retail invoice showing Panasonic refrigerator purchased from M/s. Prince Audio & Video for an amount of Rs. 10,800/-.  The only plea, which has been taken on behalf of OP has been that there was no defect in the refrigerator, but it was due to thin/extension plug wiring.  However, OP have not placed any service report or any document to show that the deficiency stated by the complainant was due to thin/extension plug wiring.  Thus, the fact remains that the refrigerator, which was purchased by the complainant was having problem, which was not attended by respondent.  Even if there was no manufacturing defect, but the fact that complaint has not been attended by the respondent and defects have not been removed, certainly, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  When there has been deficiency on the part of respondent in their service, certainly, they are liable for the same.  Therefore, the liability for deficiency can be fastened on Panasonic Appliances India Co. Ltd. (OP-2) as Prince Audio & Video (OP-1) is a dealer only. 

            Since the refrigerator purchased by the complainant did not work properly, it would be in the fittest of things if the complainant is returned the amount of Rs. 10,800/-, being the cost of the product.  The complainant have made the complaints from time to time and the defects were not removed, certainly, the complainant has suffered mental pain and agony.  Therefore, it is ordered that Panasonic Appliances India Co. Ltd. (OP-2) will return an amount of Rs. 10,800/- with Rs. 15,000/- on account of compensation, which includes the cost of litigation.  The complainant has to return the refrigerator on payment of the awarded amount.  The awarded amount be paid within a period of 30 days, failing which it will carry 9% interest from the date of order till its realisation. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                    Member              

     

  

   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President