BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 361 of 05.06.2015.
Date of Decision: 05.01.2016.
Sandeep Sethi (Advocate) son of Sh. Rajan Pal Sethi, Chamber No.6004, 6th Floor, New Judicial Complex, Part-II, Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
1. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. registered office SPIC Building Annexe, 6th Floor, No.88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai.600032 through its authorized representative/M.D/Manager.
2. M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.27/28, Ranjit Complex, Opp. P.K. Watch, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana (Local service center) through its authorized representative/M.D/Manager/Partner/Prop.
3. M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., SCO-1, Second Floor, Rarke Wali Market, Near Hotel Fortune Classic, Near Passport Office, Ludhiana (Branch Office) through its authorized representative/M.D/Manager/Partner/Prop.
4. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 11th & 12th Floor, MBS Tower, Behind Ambience Mall, NH8, Gurgaon.122002 (Haryana).
5. M/s. Mehtab Motor & Trading Co., Main Market, Model Town, Ludhiana.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH. S.P. GARG, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Mohit Kapila, Advocate
For OP 1 to OP4 : Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate
For OP5 : Exparte.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) by claiming that he purchased one room air conditioner bearing model No.CW-UC1814YA/1814203512 from opposite party No.5 vide invoice No.29973 dated 06.06.2014 for consideration of Rs.25,500/-. This product was sold on assurance of its being of best quality in performance of cooling. In May 2005, complainant approached customer care center through toll free no.18001031333 for disclosing about the problem of cooling to the effect that display temperature of unit is different from the actual room temperature. Even it was disclosed that AC is emitting problem of noise from the compressor, besides foul smell. Complainant lodged several complaints on different dates on toll free number mentioned in para no.3 of the complaint. Separate reminder on 27.05.2015 along with complaint was also filed. Technician of Ops visited complainant. Display of the product was showing different temperature from the actual room temperature and that is why sensor of the product was changed by one of the technician of the product. Despite that the problem of cooling remained persistent. Technician openly proclaimed that there is manufacturing defect, which cannot be rectified. Complainant received several calls from company side, but the complainant kept on informing that the problem has remained unsolved. Despite that complaint filed by the complainant was closed. Company gave warranty/guarantee for one year period. Complainant was not able to change the defective parts within warranty period and that is why the complaints were closed. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental trauma and harassment. By pleading deficiency in service, directions sought for exchange of the air conditioner or in the alternative for refund of the price of Rs.25,500/- along with compensation for harassment of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.
2. Opposite party No.1 to 4 filed written statement by claiming that the complaint is filed for abusing the process of law for the purpose of pressurizing the opposite parties to succumb to unreasonable and mischievous demands. It is claimed that air conditioner has been duly serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant during warranty period without any charges. Rather air conditioner in question was perfectly working because the cooling was normal at the time when air conditioner was last serviced. Performance of the product depends upon the handling of the same and the size of the room, where it is installed. Liability of opposite parties under terms and conditions of the warranty is to the extent of setting right the product by repairing the same or replacing the defective part of the same. No assurance for replacement of AC ever given by opposite parties to complainant. Complainant lodged complaint in May 2015 regarding cooling problem and that is why the service engineer of opposite parties visited premises of the complainant for removing/rectifying the said problem. Despite that the complainant was insisting as if cooling in the corner of the room was not there. Service engineer advised the complainant to decrease the temperature to get the desired cooling in the corner of the room and the complainant was satisfied with working of the AC. The present complaint alleged to be filed with ulterior motive because specific irreparable manufacturing defect has not been pointed out and nor it is pointed out that any of the part is inferior than those of the specifications. Report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories has not been obtained despite the fact that burden of proving manufacturing defect is on the complainant. No irreparable defect has developed and as such replacement of the AC or refund of the price amount not permissible. However, as a goodwill gesture, offer made by opposite parties for providing further service to the complainant regarding AC in question as per requirement. It is claimed that no cause of action accrued to the complainant. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.
3. Opposite party No.5 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.07.2015.
4. Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 and then closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 to 4 tendered in affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Rahul Nagpal, Branch Service Incharge of Ops and thereafter closed evidence.
6. There is no dispute qua the fact that air conditioner has been purchased by complainant from opposite parties. Certificate of warranty Ex. C1 in this respect has been produced. Perusal of the same reveals that warranty of the product is for one year and as purchase of the same took place admittedly on 06.06.2014 and as such, warranty to remain in vogue until 05.06.2015. However, during this warranty period problem of cooling was found and that is why job sheet Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 dated 25.05.2015 and 19.05.2015 were got prepared. It is contended by Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate representing opposite parties that the said defect was rectified after sending service engineer, but no report of satisfaction recorded by service engineer of complainant on record. Name of the technician who serviced the AC after filing of the complaints by complainant even has not been mentioned and nor his affidavit produced and as such submissions advanced by complainant has force that defect of cooling problem not rectified during warranty period. That is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
7. As terms of Ex. C1 reveals that warranty of product is for one year and as such, in view of that, replacement of the purchased AC with new one is not permissible and nor refund of the price permissible because the warranty is provided for repair purposes only.
8. Even in para No.4 of written reply under head, “Preliminary objections”, it is mentioned that as a goodwill gesture, opposite parties are ready to provide further service to the complainant regarding AC in question as per rules and that shows that actually opposite parties are still willing to repair the AC. The complainant claims to have suffered by way of filing the complaints on different intervals and as such, he to some extent suffered on account of mental harassment and agony.
9. Opposite party No.5 is seller and he is not to provide the warranty and as such, in view of certificate Ex. C1 of warranty issued by opposite party No.1 to 4, liability of opposite party No.1 to 4 held as joint and several.
10. As a sequel of the above discussion, the complaint allowed in terms that opposite party No.1 to 4 will repair the AC in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders and in case of need, defective parts only will be replaced for setting right the AC. Compensation of Rs.3000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against opposite party No.1 to 4, whose liability held as joint and several. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Sat Paul Garg) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:05.01.2016.
Gobind Ram.
