DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 468/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
22.08.2014 25.08.2014 01.09.2015
Complainants = Vs. = O.Ps.
1. Arpita Chanda 1. Zen World, Authorized Service
2. Shankar Chanda provider of Panasonic
both of 18/A, 22/1, P.K. Guha Road,
Dayal Krishna Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700028.
Alam Bazar, 2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd
Kolkata-700035. Bikas Tower-1 No. Brambhachariya
Street, Opp. T.T.C. Fortune Hotel
Lowdon Street, Kolkata-700006.
3. Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd
Shradhanjali Apartment, 33/1B,
B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002.
Advocate Name for the complainant:- X
Advocate Name for the OPs:- Amit Kr. Muhari & Others.
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Bandana Roy ….….…....President
:- Sri Rabideb Mukhopadhyay.............Member
J U D G E M E N T
Facts of the case, in short, is that the complainant purchased one Air Conditioner from the OP No-3 dated 15.04.2013 by a cash receipt challan No-BTM/3641, being 1.5 split A.C. two star Panasonic, model no-CU-UC18PKY being serial no-3423218376, with the terms and condition of the warranty granted to the favour of the complainant specifying the warranty period being that of 1 year and further extended to another year till 15.04.2015 from the date of purchase the said Air Conditioner from the OP No-3 showroom at Shradhanjali Apartment, 33/1B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002, within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.
Complainant stated that the said Air Conditioner was working and the same started dis functioning on or about 08.02.201, 23.02.2014, 14.06.2014 and 09.03.2014 whereby the complainant lodged being complainants before the OP No-1 at their registered and authorized service centre at Zen World, Authorized Service Provider of Panasonic 22/1, P.K. Guha Road, Kolkata-700028 for the service assured to be render as per the customer details warranty card and in the view thereto the OP No-1 visited the complainants residence on the very same
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-468/2014
- :: 2 :: -
days whereby the service assistant of the OP No-1 opened the said Air Conditioner and after inspection of the same four occasion firstly said there is a gas leakage, secondly said that the gas leakage could not be found and the same has to be taken to work shop for repair on the third occasion the inspectors gave the note that the work has been done and it is ok and the fourth occasion there is a compressor problem and the complainant required to pay the service charges for the same which was beyond the terms and conditions of the said warranty.
Complainant also stated that on the very same days the said Air Conditioner collapsed whereby the complainant being perplexed and bewildered contacted the OP No-1 over telephone and narrated the facts that the said air conditioner has stopped working for the reasons not known to the complainant and the OP No-1 in a highly disappointing manner totally ignoring and denying the terms of the said warranty estimated and communicated that complainant has to remit charges for replacement for the same but as per the customers details warranty and the same has no existence as the customers details warranty speaks otherwise.
Complainant further stated that the complainant in the manner aforesaid request them that the said air conditioner is under warranty and the complainant shall enjoy the free service for the same, but the OP No-1 was and/or is not eager to repair the compressor and/or gas charge until and unless the complainant make payment for the service charges to the OP No-1.
Complainant stated that it is highly disappointing and utterly disgraceful on the part of the service of the OP No-1 for which taxes, service charges and other imposition have already been paid by the complainant as per the customers details warranty card in as much as due to the non service and/or the deficiency of service on the part of the OP No-1. Hence the complaint.
OP No-2 has contested the case by filing written version.
OP No-2 stated that the OP does not want to linger the case proceeding unnecessarily and is ready to settle the matter amicably. As the machine in question is within the period of extended warranty the OP is ready to replace the compressor and/or related parts if any of the said AC in question free of cost in order to make it in workable condition.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-468/2014
- :: 3 :: -
OP No-2 also stated that in the circumstances the OP prays for an opportunity before the Ld. Forum to allow the OP to take an inspection of the said AC in question and allow at least 3 weeks time thereafter to make the necessary replacement in order to make it fully workable.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision
Admittedly complainant purchased 1.5 Ton Panasonic Split A.C. machine being model No-CU-UC18PKY from the OP No-3 on 15th April, 2013 of his choice. OP No-3 is a dealer and said machine was duly delivered upon the complainant.
Admittedly complainant had lodged service request alleging the machine was not working properly. It is also admitted that the service engineer visited the complainant and upon inspection they said machine, it’s transpired that the compressor was required to be replaced and there was a leakage in the gas pipe. OP No-3 alleged that subsequently when the complainant lodged the service request the same were duly attended by the service engineer, the replacement which was done accordingly. Ld. Lawyer for the OP Np-3 submitted that the compressor is not covered by the warranty terms and conditions of the OP No-3. As per the warranty terms of the OP No-3, the compressor can be replaced subject to payment of cost. When OP No-3 asked for require payment, the complainant refused to pay the same. OP No-3 also stated that OP No-3 file a petition praying the replacing the compressor within the extending period of warranty at free of cost but the complainant did not entertain the technician to make the machine in a workable condition.
We have persue the materials on records it appears that there is expert’s opinion to prove that machine has manufacturing defects. But when the complainant is alleging the machine is not working properly OPs should try to defect the cure if the defect is not cure OPs will pay Rs 20, 000/- to the complainant after deducting Rs 7, 500/- as charges for user.
Hence
It is ordered,
that the complaint and same be allowed on contest against the OP No-3 and exparte against the OP No-1 and 2.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 4/-
C. C. Case No.-468/2014
- :: 4 :: -
OP No-1 is directed to return a sum of Rs 20, 000/- after deducting Rs 7, 500/- as charges for user to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. On receipt of this money, complainant will return the machine to the OP No-3.
OPs are also directed to pay compensation of Rs 5, 000/- and Rs 3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which OPs shall have to pay sum of Rs 100/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the OPs in this State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
