Ld Advocates for the complainant and OP3 are present. Judgement is pronounced in open Commission in 7 pages 4 separate sheet of papers.

BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 are the Authorized Seller of the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 which are the manufacturer of Complainant’s Air Conditioner Machine. The Complainant purchased a PANASONIC Branded 1.5 Ton Inverter Split Air Conditioner Machine on 19.06.2018 at a consideration of Rs.42,000.00 against finance which was fully repaid by him on 02.03.2019; vide Model No.18XS/UKY, Indoor (I/D) Batch No. GT14710600000958, Outdoor (O/D) Batch No.GT14710700000964, Stand AC Batch No.GT15119000007142 with 3 Years Warranty (Except Rotary Compressor) for a period of 12 Months from the date of purchase invoice (“warranty period”).

2. Unfortunately from the very beginning of purchase, the said Air Conditioner Machine was not working properly and for which the Complainant lodged complaint before the Authorized Service Centre of the Op No.3 four times i.e. on 14.07.2018, 24.07.2018, 17.08.2018 and 16.09.2018 respectively. On receiving of the grievance, the Op No.3 each time attended the complaint and tried to resolve the issue by filling the leakage gas at free of cost on 14.07.2018, 13.08.2018, 27.08.2018 and 18.09.2018 respectively.

3. Ultimately working of the said Air Conditioner Machine was permanently stopped on 28.02.2019 for which the Complainant lodged complaint before the Op No.3 on 28.02.2019 and accordingly their Technician / Service Mechanic attended on 07.03.2019 and informed the Complainant about the disputed Indoor portion of the said Air Conditioner Machine.

4. Thereafter, the Complainant intimated the same to the Op No.1 & 2 but, all in vain and went to the shop of Op No.1 where the Complainant driven out with misbehaves and threats. The Complainant also served Legal Notices to the Ops on 29.03.2019 but all in vain.

5. The cause of action of this case arose on 27.03.2019 when the Op No.1 driven him out on that day by ignoring to take any liability for the disputed machine.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To direct the Ops jointly and severally to Refund Rs.42,000.00 against the cost of said Air Conditioner Machine to the Complainant.

2. To pay exemplary Compensation of Rs.25,000.00 to the Complainant by the Ops for harassment, mental pain and damage.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.8,500.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

6. Notices were duly served upon all the Ops but the Op No.1, 2 and 4 preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against them.

7. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Op No.1, 2 and 4.

8. The Op No.3 has contested the case by filing Written Version along with an Annexure against the Complaint. It is pertinent to mention that in the said Written Version as well as filed Vakalatnama, the Office Seal imprint is for Panasonic Lite Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. which is completely separate and other than the Op No.3 i.e. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.

9. While resisting the claim of the Complainant, the Op No.3 in its’ Written Version stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law due to no deficiency in the services by Op No.3 because in each time they rendered service under the Terms & Conditions for One Year Warranty by repairing with Free of Cost against the complaint registration dated: 10.07.2018, 08.08.2018, 15.09.2018 and 05.03.2019 respectively. In each occasion it is found that the complaint was due to Leakage of Gas which the Op No.3 filled each time with Free of Cost.

10. The Op No.3 cited a settled case law regarding no refund for refund of purchase price or replacement of the product can be issued where the said product is repairable :- Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Another – Vs. – M. Moosa 1994 (2) CPC 582.

11. The Op No.3 further cited two case laws regarding the settled principal of law to proof alleged defect by the Complainant u/s 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 :-

1. Baljit Kaur – Vs. – Divine Motors & Others MANU/CF/0372/2017.

2. Regional Manager, CEAT Ltd. – Vs. – Katamereddi Gopal Reddy (1997) 5 CTJ 511 (CP) (NC).

12. It is further submitted, under the Terms & Condition of Warranty, the Op is obliged to repair the Air Conditioner purchased by the Complainant, free of charge during the period of warranty and subject to following warranty Terms & Conditions :- “Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. ……. Warranties this product free from manufacturing defect during the Warranty Period as defined below …… Companies Authorized Dealer/Service Centers will repair this product …. Conditions below” :-

Warranty Period

1. The above mentioned warranty shall be valid for 3 years (except rotary compressor) for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase invoice (“warranty period”)

13. Under the above circumstances, the Op No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the present case.

14. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

15. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Affidavit of the Complainant and Evidence in Chief on Affidavit along with all other documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. Op No.3 is a Multinational Company in repute, engaged in manufacturing Air Conditioner Machines and other Electronic Gadgets. It appears that since the very inception of purchase the Complainant has an issue with the ‘Gas Leakage’ from the said Air Conditioner Machine which the Op No.3 temporarily filled in each time at free of cost within the warrantee period i.e. on 14.07.2018, 13.08.2018, 27.08.2018 and 18.09.2018 respectively but, unable to detect the actual reason of such ‘Gas Leakage’ to resolve the issue permanently in-spite of receiving the report for such defects from its’ Technicians or Service Engineers on several occasions. Therefore, there is no burden on the part of the Complainant to prove the alleged defect separately u/s 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is already evident from the report of Technicians or Service Engineers of the Op No.3.

5. From the above discussion, this Commission observed, the said Air Conditioner Machine is itself a defective one i.e.it  has got manufacturing defect from the very beginning and therefore, each times the ‘Gas Leaked’ which is itself also a threat for human being and may cause severe accident. The Op No.1 and 2 being Selling Dealer of the manufactured product of Op No.3 and 4, are not at all liable for any manufacturing defect. Over and above, in the submitted Tax Invoice issued by the Op No.1, it is clearly mentioned, “Goods once sold cannot be taken back or exchanged. For any type of complaint, please contact the Manufacturer. Dealer is not liable for any complaint after delivery. Warranty is given by the manufacturer only.”

6. Moreover, this Commission thinks, the Op No.3 tried to suppress the manufacturing defect by simply filling the leakage gas at Free of Cost within the Warranty Period i.e. One Year with a motive to kill the time limit because the defective product is not at all repairable. 

7. It is also the duty of the Op No.3 to bring notice of any detected manufacturing defect of the product to the Op No.4 if it cannot be sorted out at their regional level, towards taking back the defective product for future improvement as well as research and development (R&D). The Op No.3 has failed to do so and instead they harassed the Complainant and compelled him to suffer mental pain and agony.

8. The Op No.3 and 4 being  Manufacturer of Air Conditioner Machine have the duty to duly entertain every complaint of the customer irrespective of any warranty period, if not sorted by its’ authorized technician. Moreover, when the Manufacturer authorizes a Service Engineer or Technician to provide the service for and on its’ behalf to the customer, it should have a responsibility. In both the cases the Op No.3 and 4 fails to serve the consumer.

1. Therefore, from the evidence of complainant it clearly transpires that there are elements of Unfair Trade Practice, Negligence and Deficiency in Service by both the Op No.3 and 4.

10. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs. The Op No.3 and 4 can’t get absolved from the mischief of Negligence, Unfair Trade Practice, Harassment and Deficiency in Service. So, we think it would just and proper if we direct the Op No.3 & 4 to refund jointly or severally a sum of Rs.42,000.00 towards the Cost of Air Conditioner Machine with a liberty to take return back the said defective Air Conditioner Machine forever at its’ own cost and arrangements; to pay Compensation of Rs.13,000.00 and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order in default the Op No.3 and 4, jointly or severally will have to Simple Interest @ 10% per annum in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order.

11. Accordingly, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

•  Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-377 of 2019 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against Ops No.1, 2 and 4 and dismissed against Op No.3.

1. The Op No.3 & 4, who are jointly or severally liable, are  directed to pay a sum of Rs.42,000.00 towards the Cost of Air Conditioner Machine with a liberty to take return back the said Air Conditioner Machine forever at its’ own cost and arrangements; to pay Compensation of Rs.13,000.00 and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order;  in default the Op No.3 & 4 will have to pay Simple Interest @ 10% per annum over the awarded amount  from the date of this order till the date of actual realization.

2. The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

3. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

4. File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.