DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Present: 1. Shri Raghunath Kar , President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Dated the 14th day of November,2018
C.D.Case No. 26 of 2017
Ms Shantilata Dash
W/O Nirmal Chandra Dash
C/O Kishore Chandra Dash
At/Po- Barapada, District- Bhadrak ,Pin-756113, Odisha.
…………………………….. Complainant
(Versus
The Proprietor ,
M/S Papun Electronic , Stadium Road.
Bonth Chhacka. Bhadrak-756100.
M/S Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd
Mount Road , Guindy , Chennai,
…………………………………Opp.Parties
For the Complainant: Sri G.Nath and others,Advocates
For the Opp.Party No.1: Sri Sasntosh Kumar Nayak and others,Advocates
For the Opp.Party No.2: Sri Debasis Nayak and others,Advocates
Date of hearing : 22.10.2018
Date of order : 14.11.2018
SHREE RAGHUNATH KAR , PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps.
The back ground facts disclosed in the complaint are to the effect that complainant has purchased one Air Conditioner Refrigerator along with other electronics items from the O.P No.1. The air conditioner (1.5) so purchased by the complainant is Model No-CU-UC18RKY3-6 of Panassonic Brand. On 25.04.2016 the O.P No.1 has supplied this Air Conditioner to complainant vide cash Memo No. 38 dt. 25.04.2016 for value of Rs. 40,500/-. The warranty facility of the AC is one year from the date of purchase. But on the first day of installation of the AC, it started trouble. It got defunct automatically after 2/3 hours of run. Complainant contacted O.P No.1 regarding trouble of the AC , who advised him to wait 2/3 days ,the problem will be resolved automatically. After 2/3 days the same problem found in the AC. As such the complainant had to lodge complain before the O.Ps , which was registered vide Regd No. R280416183432. But the problem was not resolved completely. Time to time various problems detected in the AC & O.Ps had tried to solve the problems on receipt of complaint from the complainant on various dates, such as (i) R280416183432 on dt. 28.04.2016 (ii) R230816132408 on dt. 23.08.2016 (iii) R060916033794 on dt. 06.09.2016 (iv) R110916033794 on dt. 11.09.2016 (v)R250916138215 on dt. 25.09.2016 (vi) R18101612667 on dt. 18.10.2016 & (vii) R011116006400 on dt. 01.11.2016. Repeatedly the same problem was found in the AC . Finally O.Ps failed repair the defect so existed in the AC till today. The defects are:-
The noise of the AC is very irritating. It developed to frequent repairing process.
During starting of the compressor, the stabilizer sounds loudly & the cooling system did not operate properly.
The AC was kept under observation in repairing process till last November of 2016 and the complainant suffered from severe mental agony due to defunct of the AC although the complainant spent a lot of money in this regard. The complainant requested to change the AC or to refund back her cash of Rs. 43,000/- and expressed her continuous sufferings and mental agony due to non-operation of AC but O.Ps did not allow the complainant to settle her grievances, . Such acts of O.Ps have caused financial loss and harassment to her . Complainant has therefore filed this case seeking direction to O.Ps to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and to refund Rs.40,500/- paid towards cost of the AC as well as to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
O.P.No.1 resisted the complaint and contested the claim that the warranty period of the AC was till April 2017 & complainant has never raised the issue before this O.P.to change the said AC on 5.4.2017 and to refund Rs. 43.000/-. The complainant has also never request for settlement of the dispute. The O.P NO.1 has admitted to have sold the AC at a consideration of Rs. 40,500/-. After installation of the AC the O.P No.1 inspected the AC through mechanics of O.P No.2 and found that the AC was functioning in proper condition. In the summer of the year 2016-2017 due to low voltage the AC was not functioning in proper manner. The O.P no.1 is the retailer who earns his livelihood by selling the electronics items of different companies for which the O.P No.1 is no way liable to replace the AC. As O.P No.1 is not deficient in rendering service to the complainant , the complaint is liable to be dismissed against him .
O.P.No.2 resisted the complaint and contested the claim that the complainant on 25.04.2016 has purchased an air conditioner bearing Model No. CU-UC18RKY3-6 from O.P No.1 . The installation of the said AC was done by a third party bearing no relation to the answering opposite party. The complainant first contacted him through phone to service centre , accordingly request was registered vide service ID No. (i) R280416183432 on dt. 28.04.2016 then on (ii) R230816132408 on dt. 23.08.2016 (iii) R060916033794 on dt. 06.09.2016 (iv) R110916033794 on dt. 11.09.2016 (v)R250916138215 on dt. 25.09.2016 (vi) R181016126674 on dt. 18.10.2016 & (vii) R011116006400 on dt. 01.11.2016. On each date of complain one service engineer was entrusted to attend every service requests made by the complainant. After availing all the services complainant still demanded replacement of the product which was not feasible as per the warranty terms and conditions. The warranty provided by the O.Ps in the product is a limited warranty and covers only repair and does not entitle the complainant for replacement. Due to wiring and electrical installation at the house of the complainant and due to low voltage the AC is not functioning properly. The captioned complaint is nothing but a bunch of vexatious falsehoods and liable to be dismissed. In this case O.Ps No.2 files citations (i) Bharathi Knitting co. Vs. DHL World wide Express courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2508 & (ii) Rameshwari Devi & others Vs. Nirmala Devi and others (Civil Appeal No. s. 4912-4913 decided on luly 4, 2011).
Undisputedly, complainant has purchased one Air Conditioner bearing Model No. CU-UC18RKY3-6 of Panasonic Brand from O.P.No.1 on 25.04.2016 for the value of Rs. 40.500/- .After 2/3 hour of run when problem detected in the AC the complaint has filed complain on 26.04.2016 which has been registered on 28.04.2018. Thereafter more than seven time of requests of the complainant has been registered by the O.Ps and the service engineer of O.Ps have visited the premises of the complainant . The Job sheet provided by the service engineer detecting observations as follows:-
Sl No.
Request Registration ID No.
Date
Observation by the service Engineer.
1
R280416183432
28.04.2016
Customer not available
2
R230816132408
23.08.2016
Filter claim set OK
3
R060916033794
06.09.2016
PCB Change set OK
4
R110916059389
11.09.2016
Blower Motor, Bush adjustment set OK
5
R250916138215
25.09.2016
Customer out of station
6
R181016126674
18.10.2016
Filter claim set OK
7
R011116006400
01.11.2016.
LED Display fitting set OK
8
R120417092117
15.04.2017
Blower Bush adjustment set OK
The term & condition of the warranty card so provided by the O.Ps to complainant is as follows :-
“Dear customer,
Thank you for buying this Panasonic product. :-This card entitles you to enjoy 1 year warranty on the product.
Additional Rotary compressor fitted in all Panasonic Domestic One to One to ne split Air- Conditioners up to 5 Ton & Scroll Compressor fitted One to One High wall Split inverter model up to 5 Ton carries warranty for 5 years from the date of purchase.
Scroll compressor fitted in other models not specified above carries warranty for 3 years from the date of purchase.”
It shows that complainant has purchased the AC set from O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.40, 500/- with one year warranty & the set showed defect within one day of installation and was given intimation for repairing within the warranty period. The warranty card (Annexure-2/11 - 21) filed on behalf of the O.P No2 is different from the warranty card filed by the complainant which has not supplied to the complainant. This shows unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P No.2. The plea taken by the O.P No.2 is not sustainable as the service Engineer deputed by him has no where uttered a single word regarding problem in the AC is due to Electric installation and low voltage.
when complainant approached for rectification of the defects she was to be provided proper service and the defects were removed to the her satisfaction . Defects could not be rectified satisfactorily despite attempts by the service Engineer, this could be due – “either to defective individual components/parts and/or inadequate skills of the technician/technicians doing the repair jobs”. However, even if they represented manufacturing defect, the warranty clause would entitle the complainant to free replacement and installation of those components/parts till smooth functioning of the Air conditioner in question. But O.Ps failed to do so.
In this circumstances the citations filed by the O.Ps is not applicable to this case.
The consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") was enacted inter-alia to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers. The applicability of the said act in the instant case is not in dispute. The dispute between the parties is admittedly 'the Consumer Dispute' within the meaning of Section-2(e) of the act. It is further not been disputed that there has been a "Deficiency of service". The deficiency has been defined in section 2 (g) of the act:
"Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been under-taken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service".
Section-14 of the act provides all the power to the forum to issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the things satisfied therein including;
(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect;
(c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant....."
. The defect in the AC was found only during the period of warranty as per the documents filed on behalf of O.Ps . As such the O.Ps are to undertake to attain to the complaint for removal of the defect. In our opinion within the period of contract or warranty provided by the O.Ps the O.Ps are deficient in rendering service to a valued consumer and the materials filed & pleas of O.Ps becomes void as they failed to prove the defect is due to electrical installation and not a manufacturing defect. Hence O.Ps are liable to compensate the complainant. Accordingly, it is ordered:-
O R D E R
The complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2. is directed to replace the Air Condition by a new one with fresh warranty or to pay the cost of the Air Conditioner and to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation within one month of receipt of the order. O.P No.1 is immune from any liability.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 14th day of November, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
