D.O.F:20/10/2020
D.O.O:13/11/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.140/2020
Dated this, the 13th day of November 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sobhidha B, @ Shobhitha, aged 27 years,
W/o Rajesh,
Residing at Manikoth, Ajanoor,
Hosdurg Taluk,
Kasaragod District – 671531. : Complainant
(Adv: Beena K. M. & Harshitha K. M.)
And
- The Proprietor,
National Radio Electronics,
North Kottachery, Kanhangad,
Hosdurg Taluk,
Kasaragod District – 671531.
- The Manager,
Panasonic India Pvt Ltd,
12th Floor, Ambience Tower,
Ambience Island, NH - 8, Gurgaon,
Haryana State -122002.
(Adv: C.V. Narayanan) : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The case of the complainant is as follows; that the complainant purchased a Panasonic room air conditioner (AC) IT inverter 55 CS/CU-ZU12 WKYF, Code.22889, cess.248.06 and V-Guard stabilizer VG 400 PLUS/DLX, code.14887, cess.13.45 to a total worth of Rs.33,600/- from opposite party No.1 on 20/03/2020. The opposite party No.1 had given instruction to me that the Panasonic AC is better than LG company AC in every manner and Panasonic AC contains more facilities available than in LG AC and they are also providing good services to the product. Even though the product is purchased on 20/3/2020 it was not fitted on that date. Inspite of several requests made by the complainant opposite party fitted the AC on 10/04/2020 and demanded Rs.1,200/- as fitting charge. But on bargaining, they reduced the amount to Rs.800/. After fitting itself, the AC was not cooling and the opposite party told them to wait for some time. Thereafter also, it is not cooling. Opposite party told that it will cool after some time and handed over the non-filled warranty card to the complainant. When the complainant asked about the non-filled warranty card, opposite party No.1 assured that they will do needful if it is required. But the AC was not cooling and the same was informed to the opposite party No.1 then he told that it will be proper. Inspite of several requests made by the complainant, opposite party No.1 did not cured the defect. When the complainant orally made a complaint to opposite party No.1 he insulted the complainant by saying that due to the high body temperature of the complainant, cooling of AC was not feeling to him. When the complainant requested opposite party No.1 to fill the warranty card, he refused to do so. The complainant purchased the AC at the time of summer season to get cool and the AC was fitted in a small room. In normal case, the AC will be cool within 12 minutes but this AC is very lightly cooling only one side that also after 3-4 hours a very light cooling and the entire room was not cooling. Moreover, complainant’s relatives and friends also complained about the non-cooling of AC. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 several times raising the issue of non-cooling of AC, but they send him back by raising one or other reasons. The allegation of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 had not given any proper services to the complainant soon after purchase and they have not complied their promises relating to good services by them to the product. There is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in redressing the grievance of the complainant, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant seeking the price of the AC with fitting charge along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony as well as pain suffered by the complainant.
The opposite party No.2 filed version, according to him opposite party is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of company’s Act 1956 having its office at Hariyana. According to opposite party No.2 the complaint is not maintainable as the services of the opposite party does not suffer from any deficiency. Allegations against the opposite party No.2 are vague baseless, and without any merits. And therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The opposite party No.2 further admits that he received the first complaint with respect to the cooling of the AC from the complainant on 27/08/2020, after 5 months of purchase. And it is very clear that there was no manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner. On receiving the complaint, the service engineer of opposite party immediately visited the premises of the complainant on 28/08/2020 and inspected the Air Conditioner. Upon inspection, it was found that there was no problem with respect to the cooling and the AC was found to be working in a proper condition. The service engineer of opposite party requested the complainant to sign the Job sheet, but the complainant refused due to Covid-19. The opposite party No.2 received second and third complaint with respect to cooling of AC from the complainant on 30/08/2020 and 16/09/2020. Upon receiving the complaint, the service engineer of opposite party immediately visited the premises of the complainant on 01/09/2020 and 18/09/2020. Upon inspection, the AC was found to be working in a proper condition. On 29/09/2020, the service center of opposite party No. 2 send a letter to the complainant and informed that after an extensive diagnosis their technical engineer could not found any defect in the functioning of the Air Conditioner. The service center further informed that a replacement or refund of the product is not possible unless the product has some technical defect. The opposite party is always willing to repair the product as per the warranty policy of the company. The respondent did not receive any responds from the complainant. The opposite party further states that there is no specific allegation against opposite party No.2 in the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. Moreover, the complainant is guilty of suppression of material facts. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
The complainant filed IA 270/2021 to appoint an expert commissioner to file a report answering the points mentioned in the work memo. Even though the IA is allowed, no expert list is filed. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 and A2. The opposite party No.2 produced documents which are marked as Ext.B1 to B5. The issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in giving proper service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, issues No.1 to 3 can be discussed together. The complainant purchased an AC and stabilizer of good quality from opposite party No.1 for Rs.33,600/- on 20/03/2020. The opposite party No.1 advised the complainant that Panasonic AC is better than LG Company AC in every manner as it contains more facilities than LG AC. Moreover, they are providing good services to the product. Even after the purchase, the complainant made several requests to fit the AC. And ultimately on 10/04/2020, the staff of opposite party fitted the AC and collected charge of Rs.800/- also. The opposite party handed over a non-filled warranty card to the complainant. The AC was not cooling from the first day itself and it was informed to opposite party No.2. After fitting the AC, the opposite party was not ready to heed the complaints of the complainant. In one occasion, the opposite party insulted the complainant also. In a normal case, the AC will be cool within 12 minutes. But the AC purchased from the opposite parties was lightly cooling only inside. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the opposite party No.1, Ext.A2 is the warranty card. The complainant produced these documents to prove the purchase of AC. From the side of opposite party No.2, Ext.B1 to B5 were marked, no oral evidence adduced. Ext.B1 is the copy of the board resolution, B2 is the copy of the job sheet dtd 28/08/2020, B3 is the Job sheet dated 01/09/2020, Ext.B4 is Job sheet dated 18/09/2020, Ext.B5 is the copy of the letter dated 29/09/2020 issued by the service center on 29/09/2020. Ext.B2 to B5 proves that the complaint of AC was continuous. Moreover, the opposite party failed to fit the AC on the date of purchase. The purpose of purchasing AC is to get cool and if the AC is not functioning properly and if the cooling is very light, it is of no use. The documents produced by opposite party, Ext.B2 to B5 proves that opposite party failed to cure the defects of AC properly. And the lethargic attitude of opposite party No.1 caused huge loss and severe mental agony to the complainant. Of course, there is serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as per Ext.B2 to B5. Due to the negligence of the opposite party, the complainant had undergone loss and untold miseries. The complainant is entitled for relief. The relief claimed by the complainant is to replace the product with compensation and other expenses. The product was purchased on 20/03/2020. After the lapse of 3 years, it is not fair to seek replacement especially when there is no expert report to prove manufacturing technical defect. Even though the complainant filed an IA to issue an expert commissioner, IA is allowed but expert list is not filed. If there is a technical defect, the relief claimed by the complainant is reasonable. But in the absence of an expert report, opposite party is liable to cure the defects of the AC and complainant is entitled for a relief for the delay in fitting AC and charging of fitting charge and insult from the opposite party to complainant along with failure to cure the defects of AC. The complainant was at liberty to seek replacement during warranty period.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing opposite party No.1 to cure the defects of the AC without insisting any cost and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Bill issued by the opposite party No.1
A2 – Warranty Card
B1 – Copy of the Board Resolution
B2 – Copy of the Job sheet dated 28/08/2020
B3 – Copy of the Job sheet dated 01/09/2020
B4 – Copy of the Job sheet dated 18/09/2020
B5 – Copy of the letter dated 29/09/2020
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Sobhidha B.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
