Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/405

V P ABDUN NAJEEB - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER PANASONIC INDIA Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

ABDUL SHUKOOR ARACKAL

21 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.405/16

JUDGMENT DATED:21.06.2018

 

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH                                            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                                             : MEMBER

 

V. M. Abdunnajeeb, S/o Alavi Vappattu,

Vappattu House, Cheruvadi P.O,

Kozhikkode Taluk, Kozhikkode District,

Kerala-Pin-673 661.                                                                        : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. Abdul Shukkur Arakkal)

 

            Vs.

 

1. The Manager,

Panasonic India Private Ltd.,

Door. No.37/2022, C,D,G & H,

Second Floor, Joseph & Valentines Building,

Jawahar Nagar, Kochi-20.

                                                                                                            : RESPONDENTS

2. The Managing Partner,

Green Star Engineers,

44/A3, First Floor,

Omar Complex, Karukappally,

•  

 

(By Adv: Sri. K.S. Arun Das)

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

 

        Complainant is the appellant.  His complaint numbered as CC.20/15 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, for short, the district forum, alleging deficiency of service against the opposite parties and claiming compensation was dismissed by the forum by Order dated 27.01.16.  Aggrieved by the Order, he has preferred this appeal.

2.     Complainant for installation of air conditioners in his residence, placed a proposal before the 1^st opposite party, manufacturer of air conditioners. Proposal was for installation of 10 air conditioners for a total sum of Rs.8,20,000/-, as fixed by the first opposite party.  First opposite party promised to provide air conditioners manufactured at Malaysia and also to carry out its installation in the residence of the complainant through its service personnel.  A sum of Rs.4,10,000/-, as demanded by the first opposite party, was paid to their authorized dealer, the 2^nd opposite party, for downloading of the air conditioners at the residence of the complainant.  Advance amount as above was paid on 15.06.13.  The balance amount was to be paid after installation of the air conditioners and its trial run.  First opposite party delivered the air conditioners, which, on inspection, were found to be manufactured at China.  Complainant objected to the China made air conditioners and demanded for Malaysia made air conditioners, as agreed to, and further borne out by exhibit A2 communication of  first opposite party accepting the proposal of the complainant.  Since the demand was not satisfied, after issuing a lawyer’s notice, complainant approached the forum with the complaint alleging deficiency of service against both the opposite parties and for issue of directions to them to provide Malaysian made air conditioners, as agreed to in exhibit A2 communication, and, also for compensation for the loss and injury suffered by him.

3.     Notice given opposite parties appeared but did not file version.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and exhibited A1 to A6. Lower forum, appreciating the materials came to the conclusion that since the design and engineering support for the air conditioners provided and supplied to the complainant was by the first opposite party there is no merit in the complaint made that the air conditioners were manufactured at China and not at Malaysia, and, in that view of the matter, the complaint was dismissed.  Appeal is directed against that Order.

4.     We heard counsel on both sides and perused the records.  Learned counsel for the appellant inviting our attention to exhibit A2 contended that in the above communication which contained the proforma invoice, first opposite party has unequivocally stated that the air conditioners manufactured at Panasonic HA Air-Conditioning R&D (M) Sdn Bhd (PHAARADM), Malaysia will be supplied.  In addition to that, it was also stated that Panasonic’s Malaysia factory produced more than 1.2 million AC that are sold in over 120 countries across the world.  Accepting the promise made that air conditioners manufactured in Malaysia will be supplied, complainant placed the order and paid the advance amount of one half of the total cost demanded to the authorized dealer (2^nd opposite party) of the first opposite party.  However, the air condition ers supplied were found to be manufactured at China contrary to the terms made under the invoice, exhibit A2.  The finding of the lower forum that since technical support is given by the first opposite party over the China made air conditioners, the place of manufacture does not have much significance is assailed by the counsel stating that goods manufactured in China are of low quality material and the life span of the products is also much limited.  The lower forum failed to note that there was deficiency of service and, in fact, unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is the submission of counsel to ask for reversal of the Order of the lower forum and for refund of the amount paid to opposite parties with interest and compensation.  In view of the time lag, according to the counsel, complainant does not insist for installation of air conditioners as under the proposal and only for refund of the amount paid with compensation.  Learned counsel appearing for 1^st respondent submitted that  respondent is prepared to comply with the orders passed by this Commission.

5.     The lower forum has gone wrong in holding that the products manufactured at two different countries will not have variance when technical support for such product is given by the same manufacturer.  It lost sight of the fact that raw materials from which the products are made differ from one country to another.  A multinational company like Panasonic is engaged in manufacture of its products  in various countries, following distinct and different process in manufacturing the parts.  Cost of materials, expenses for providing technical support etc. are also different from one country to another.  Massive production of goods in China where raw materials are of lower price compared to other countries, and also labour cost is less, needless to point out, may affect the quality of  products as well.  More than that when proposal of the complainant was for Malaysian made air conditioners, as promised by the first opposite party in its invoice, exhibit A2, necessarily, it was bound to supply such air conditioners to the complainant.  For the reason that design and engineering support for the air conditioners are provided by the first opposite party, it does not follow that China manufactured products are equivalent to Malaysian manufactured products.  There was certainly deficiency of service on the part of both the opposite parties and also, in fact, unfair trade practice by them in the proved facts of the case.  A sum of Rs.4,10,000/- was collected as advance from the complainant for supply of 10 air conditioners on 15.06.13 by the first opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party, its dealer, is not disputed.  We agree with the counsel for appellant that no purpose will be served by issuing a direction for providing Malaysian manufactured air conditioners at this stage i.e. more than 5 years after the proposal made.  Naturally, in view of the passage of time, much improvement in the production of air conditioners might have occurred and at this stage, any direction issued for supply of air conditioners made five years back will not serve any purpose.   Complainant has to be awarded refund of the amount collected from him with compensation, for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.

6.     In the result, appeal is allowed and opposite parties are ordered to refund the sum of Rs.4,10,000/- with 10% interest from 15.06.13 till realization with  direction to pay such sum within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment.  Opposite parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for their deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in supplying China made products instead of Malaysia manufactured products as promised. 

7.     Complainant has to hand over the products received from the opposite parties for realizing the refund and compensation ordered, which is to be complied with by  opposite parties producing demand draft for the sum before the lower forum.

        Both parties are directed to suffer their cost.  

   

     JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.

RANJIT. R : MEMBER