BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.325 of 2022
Date of Instt. 06.09.2022
Date of Decision: 18.05.2023
Mrs. Asha Gupta, aged 62 years, wife of Prof. Naresh Gupta, Resident of 46/7, Friends Colony, Opposite D. A. V. College, Jalandhar (Preliminary hearing. No.94633-50195)
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Shalimar Marketing, Shakti Tower, Near BMC Chow, Jalandhar At present-615-L, Mall Road, Model Town Jalandhar (Mobile No.98157-46800)
2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12th Floor, Ambience Island, NH-8 Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India Ph. No.+91-124-4751300.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Naresh Gupta, Auth. Rep. for Complainant.
Sh. H. S. Chahal, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased a Panasonic refrigerator NR-BR 307XSX1 on 17th Oct, 2017 from Panasonic dealer Ex.C-1. As per the certificate of warranty, the compressor carries a warranty for a period of 10 years from the date of purchase. In July, 2022 cooling in the refrigerator stopped and the compressor started producing a sound. Then a complaint was registered on 25th July, 2022 by her husband Naresh Gupta on Panasonic Tool Free No.18001031333 with job registration ID R25072218142694. On 25th July 2022 evening Panasonic engineer checked the product and submitted that the compressor needs to be replaced and complainant will have to pay Rs.2000/- for compressor replacement. On 2nd August 2022 on contacting head office contact no.9289327080 of Area Manager (Mr. Rohit) was provided to know the latest position. Mr. Rohit misguided the complainant by saying that the spare part is in mail from Chennai, then from Delhi. On 17th Aug 2022 area manager Mr. Rohit suggested replacement of the product on 22nd Aug 2022 Area Manager suggested on mobile replacement of the product with 80% depreciation to the complainant as the spare part was not available. On 22nd Aug 2022 complainant asked head office as to why suffer depreciation Then at 11:40 am call from Chandigarh office from mobile number 7018770776 was received for 90% depreciation on strong objection by the complainant Mr. Nitin Bansal from Chandigarh office at 2.44 pm contacted to pay Rs 23470/- for product replacement with the model NR-TG 322BPAN for which a written letter was also received on 25th Aug 2022 from Panasonic life Solution India Pvt. Ltd. W- 4A, 4th Floor, Godrej Eternia Plot No.-70,Phase-1 Industrial Area Chandigarh- 160002. The complainant refused for replacement with any other Panasonic product and requested for compensation. On 01.9.2022 complainant tried to talk with senior of the head office but failed. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.33,700/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum on the claim amount w.e.f. 25th July, 2022 till date the same is paid to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The OP No. 1 is not the necessary party. There are no allegations qua the deficiency in service qua the OP No. 1 with regard to refrigerator sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant. It is admitted case that the OP No.1 sold refrigerator to the complainant which is original, genuine and new one as supplied by the OP No. 2. It is OP No. 2 and its service centre, who were responsible for providing service after sale in case, there was any deficiency in any part of the sold product. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OP No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the refrigerator with warranty by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint under reply is not maintainable as the service of the OP No.2 does not suffer from any deficiency within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further averred that the complaint under reply is also barred by Section 2(6), (10), (42) and (47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in as much as, there is neither any unfair trade practice, any defect in the product nor any deficiency in the services provided by the OP No.2. The parties are binding to the terms of warranty. The warranty Clause does not warrant replacement of the Refrigerator or refund of the purchase price of the Refrigerator. It is further averred that the Complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the back drop of the settled principles of law which states that no direction for refund of purchase price or replacement of the product can be issued where the set is repairable. It is further averred that the complainant has not stated the true, correct and complete set of facts in the complaint and is thus, guilty of concealment of facts. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the refrigerator with warranty by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant purchased a Panasonic refrigerator on 17 October, 2017 from OP No.1 for Rs.33,700/-, which is evident from Ex.C-1. As per warranty card Ex.C-2, 10 years warranty was given for the compressor from the date of purchase. In July, 2022 the refrigerator stopped working and the complainant made complaint on 25th July, 2022 on Panasonic Tool Free Number 18001031333 with complete registration ID-R25072218142694, which is evident from Ex.C-3. On 25th July, 2022, the company engineer checked the product and charged Rs.590/- for visit and told the complainant that the compressor requires to be replaced and the complainant has to bear the charges of Rs.2000/-. On 2nd August, 2022, complainant contacted Mr. Rohit/Area Manager, who said that spare parts are in the mail from Chennai, then from Delhi. Then on 17th August, 2022 Mr. Rohit Suggested on mobile for replacement of the product with 80% depreciation. Then on 22nd August, 2022 complainant asked head office, Chandigarh the reasons for 80% depreciation. Then they informed by mobile No.7018770776 that complainant has to pay 90% depreciation, which the complainant refused. Then Mr. Nitish Bansal from Chandigarh office contacted the complainant and asked to pay Rs.23470/- for product replacement with other model NR-TG-322BPAN for which complainant also received a letter from Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd. on 25 August, 2022 that company does not have the same component to replace, but the complainant refused for replacement for other models and asked for compensation. On 01.09.2022, the complainant tried to talk with senior head office, Chandigarh but failed and lastly the complainant has to come to the Commission.
8. The OP No.1 denies the allegation on the ground that he is only dealer of the OP No.2 and he is not responsible for any defect in the component, but his version is not tenable because he has sold the product and it is his duty to sell the product after verifying that it is without any defect. So, he is also responsible for any defect in the component sold by him.
9. OP No.2 replied that he is not responsible for replacement, but only for repair. Since, the product is within the warranty and it is responsibility of the company to repair the product and if any part to repair the component is not available with them, then they have to replace the product, but as they do not have same spare part to repair the component, then they have to return the sale money.
10. So, from all the angles there is a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief and the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund Rs.33,700/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase till its realization and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation including litigation expenses for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
18.05.2023 Member President
