Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  :  59 of 2018

Date of Institution                      :  29.05.2018

Date of Decision               : 27.01.2020

SP Garg s/o Sh. R.D. Garg R/o 12 PreetVihar near GNDU Amritsar.

                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. Proprietor Sanyo Electronics, Hall Bazar, Amritsar,
2. Sanyo Electronics through its proprietor, Hall Bazar Amritsar,
3. Panasonic Corporation, H.O. 12^th Floor, Ambience Island, NH-8 Gurgaon 122002 Haryana through its Managing Partner (Fax 124-4751333)

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. JaswinderKaur, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. S.P. GargInperson

For Opposite Parties               Sh. S.S Kang Advocate

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant S.P. Garg has filed the present complaint under Section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Proprietor Sanyo Electronics, Hall Bazar, Amritsar and others (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the sale amount of Rs. 26,000/- to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and to refund the amount as per annexure A and B or in the alternative the AC unit may be replaced by new one of the similar grade / specification free of costs and prayed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and prayed Rs. 2,500/- as litigation expenses.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased two ACs of Panasonic make (Split) from opposite parties No. 1 and 2 on 6.3.2012 vide bill No. 9776 the amount of both ACs charges was Rs. 52,000/- was paid to opposite parties as full and final payment but the receipt of the same was not delivered to the complainant by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them. Both ACs were installed by opposite parties through their own electricians in his house (one in bed room, other in the drawing room). One of the ACs installed in the drawing room started giving trouble just after one year in the year 2013 and the matter was reported to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 who sent some technicians who claimed that they are the actual technicians from Panasonic company while the ACs were installed by some local person sent by opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The said technicians rectified the fault set the AC right which ran for another one year. Again in the year 2014 the same AC went faulty and the technician again sent by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 on complaint visited the site and rectified the fault and charged Rs. 2,000/- for the repairs and issued a receipt (Annexure A). The said AC again got faulty in the year 2015 and the technicians sent by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 removed the AC and took to their workshop and filled the gas which they said that it had leaked. In the workshop they thoroughly checked the AC unit and plugged all points of gas leaked and charged Rs. 3,200/- (annexure B) and the new stabilizer as per their advice was also installed. During last month the AC which was working fine till 21.8.2017 again created problem and the stabilizer was short circulated and it was taken to workshop from where it was purchased last year (august 2016 as per stamp on stabilizer) Now when the repaired stabilizer was fitted on 25.8.2017 the AC did not work properly as there was no cooling only the fan ran. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 was again approached whose technicians on their visit reported the AC needs fresh gas filling and estimate expenditure would be Rs. 3,000/- proving that the AC unit was a faulty one since its purchase itself. The deficiency is writ large on the face of it which requires no expert opinion. The complainant does not want to spend more money on the same. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint and pleaded that the opposite parties are only aware of one air conditioner purchased by the complainant. The complainant has got the installation of the air conditioner from his own electrician. Hence there is no responsibility or liability of the opposite parties. A complaint has been received from the complainant for the first time in July 2014 i.e. after the warranty of the air condition had expired. When the complaint was received in July, 2014the same was attended and the air conditioner was made functional to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, no complaint has been received by the opposite parties regarding any fault in the air conditioner. The receipt filed on record shows that the complaint was made by the complainant on 14.7.2014 and the same was duly attended by the opposite parties through their service centre. As the unit was not within warranty, the sum of Rs. 2,000/- was charged from the complainant towards gas charges and service. No complaint was made by the complainant in the year 2015 with the opposite parties or their service centre. The receipt in reference has not been issued by the respondents. The complainant may have got the air conditioner serviced from an outside vendor. The complainant has not purchased the stabilizer from the opposite parties. All the other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite parties and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of MamandeepSodhiEx. OPs 1,2,3/1 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the complainant and Ld. counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

6        The complainant contended that he has purchased two ACs of Panasonic make (Split) from opposite parties No. 1 and 2 on 6.3.2012 vide bill No. 9776 the amount of both ACs charges was Rs. 52,000/- was paid to opposite parties as full and final payment but the receipt of the same was not delivered to the complainant by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them. He further contended that both ACs were installed by opposite parties through their own electricians in his house (one in bed room, other in the drawing room). One of the ACs installed in the drawing room started giving trouble just after one year in the year 2013 and the matter was reported to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 who sent some technicians who claimed that they are the actual technicians from Panasonic Company while the ACs were installed by some local person sent by opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The said technicians rectified the fault set the AC right which ran for another one year. It is also contended that again in the year 2014 the same AC went faulty and the technician again sent by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 on complaint visited the site and rectified the fault and charged Rs. 2,000/- for the repairs and issued a receipt Ex. C-2. He further contended that the said AC again got faulty in the year 2015 and the technicians sent by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 removed the AC and took to their workshop and filled the gas which they said that it had leaked. In the workshop they thoroughly checked the AC unit and plugged all points of gas leaked and charged Rs. 3,200/- vide Ex. C-4 and the new stabilizer as per their advice was also installed. During last month the AC which was working fine till 21.8.2017 again created problem and the stabilizer was short circulated and it was taken to workshop from where it was purchased last year (august 2016 as per stamp on stabilizer). He further contended that now when the repaired stabilizer was fitted on 25.8.2017 the AC did not work properly as there was no cooling only the fan ran. The opposite parties No. 1 and  2 was again approached technicians and on their visit reported the AC needs fresh gas filling and estimate expenditure would be Rs.3,000/-  proving that the AC unit was a faulty one since its purchase itself. He further contended that the present complaint may be allowed.

7        Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that the opposite parties are only aware of one air conditioner purchased by the complainant. The complainant has got the installation of the air conditioner from his own electrician. Hence there is no responsibility or liability of the opposite parties. He further contended that a complaint has been received from the complainant for the first time in July 2014 i.e. after the warranty of the air condition had expired. When the complaint was received in July, 2014 the same was attended and the air conditioner was made functional to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, no complaint has been received by the opposite parties regarding any fault in the air conditioner. The receipt filed on record shows that the complaint was made by the complainant on 14.7.2014 and the same was duly attended by the opposite parties through their service centre. As the unit was not within warranty, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was charged from the complainant towards gas charges and service. No complaint was made by the complainant in the year 2015 with the opposite parties or their service centre. The receipt in reference has not been issued by the respondents. He further contended that the complainant may have got the air conditioner serviced from an outside vendor. The complainant has not purchased the stabilizer from the opposite parties and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

8        In the present case, it is admitted case of the opposite parties that the complainant approached the opposite parties in the year 2014 with some problem in the AC in question and the complainant has also placed on record receipt dated 14.7.2014 Ex. C-2 on the record which showing the gas charges and service of the A.C in question. The complainant has also placed on record one receipt dated 4.7.2015 Ex. C-4 and the complainant has also placed on record one another receipt for Rs. 3,500/-dated 29.8.2018 Ex. C-5 which shows that the AC in question is suffering defects time to time and the complainant is not enjoying the facilities of the AC in question.The complainant has mentioned in the complaint that he purchased the A.C. in question on 6.3.2012 and in the year 2013 the AC started giving problems in the same. The complainant has not mentioned the exact date when the defect comes in the AC in question first time and it is not clear that whether the defect occurred in the AC within one year from the date of purchase of AC or after the one year from the date of purchase of AC in question. In the pleadings, the complainant himself pleaded that in the year 2013, he reported the matter with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The complainant has placed on record receipt Ex. C-2 which is dated 14.7.2014, other receipt Ex. C-3 which is dated 4.7.2015, another receipt Ex. C-5 which is dated 29.8.2018. The entire evidence placed on record shows that definitely the complainant is facing problems with the AC in question but it is not proved on record whether the problems in the AC in question comes within warranty period.  As such, the complainant is not entitled to refund the full price of the AC in question from the opposite parties. However, the complainant has purchased the AC in question for his facility but he has not enjoyed its services. The complainant has made the full payment to the opposite parties for their product. The complainant has used the product almost for four years as per record and still he is using the same till date. As such, the complainant is entitled to the repair of the same free of costs for enjoying its facility.

9        In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to repair the AC in question of the complainant free of costs to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing with the complainant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the awarded amount from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.