DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 12/04/2023
CC/97/2023
Geetha R.,
Anikode Village,
Anikode Post, Palakkad – 678 572 - Complainant
(By Adv. Vinod K. Kayanat)
Vs
- Jamal Sales Corporation,
Court Road, Palakkad – 678 001
- Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt.Ltd.,
12th Floor, Ambience Tower,
Ambience Island, NH – 8, Gurgaon,
Haryana – 122 002 - Opposite parties
(OP1 by Adv.T.N.Sabeesh
OP2 by Adv. Rajesh M Menon/Exparte)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complainant grieves that she purchased an Air Condition from the 1st OP which was manufactured by the 2nd OP. At the time of installation itself the air conditioner started showing cooling issues and was not functioning properly. After continued complaints and verifications the complainant installed a stabilizer. Thereafter also the AC was not functioning properly. Even though the 2nd OP had informed their willingness to replace the AC they had not done so. The complainant had to incur heavy loss by additional electricity charges for the verification of the condition of the OP. Complainant seeks return of Rs.53,800/- being the cost of the AC together with interest and Rs.1 lakh and compensation. She also seeks for Rs.5,000/- as electricity charges and incidental and ancillary reliefs.
- 1st OP filed version contesting complaint pleadings. They stated that they were only a dealer. They repudiated the contention that the OPs had carried out continuous repairs of the air conditioner and that there were admissions of defects being suffered by the AC. The technicians who had answered the complaints of the complainant could not find any defects in the AC. Complaint is false and vexatious.
- Notices were issued to OPs on 22/4/2023. OP2 entered appearance on 15/6/2023 they were directed to file version within the statutory period. OP filed version on 27/7/2023. Since there was a doubt that the version was filed beyond the statutory period. OP2 was directed to file an affidavit stating the date on which they received the notice. But the 2nd OP was continuously absent and failed to file the affidavit as directed. Hence, they were set exparte on 7/11/2023. Thereafter O.P.2 had not appeared before this Commission.
- The following issues were framed for consideration:
- Whether the OPs failed to provide proper service to the A/C fitted in the complainant’s house?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
5. (i) Documentary evidence of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits
A1 to A19. Complainant was examined as PW1.
(ii) OP1 filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. B1.
(iii) Per description, Ext. B1 is a temperature test report dated 02/07/2024. It is a statement of temperature, setting out the parameters, stating that the product is working normally. But this report is prepared only on 02/07/2024, it more that one year after the service personnel had carried out the inspection. The report also contains how they had tried to educate the complainant and her unwillingness to understand the facts and circumstances.
It can be seen that Ext. B1 is nothing short of a pleading that was left out by the O.P.s, disguised as a report. This document is only an after-thought and meant solely to misguide this Commission. Conduct of the 1st O.P. in producing such a document without verifying its nature is deprecated.
Issue No.1
6. Complainant’s case is that she purchased the air conditioner from 1st OP on 20/2/2023. On 21/2/2023 itself the AC was found to be defective and was not providing the expected output. The 1st OP filed version contesting the complaint pleadings.
7. In view of the heated contest by the 1st OP it was incumbent on the part of the complainant to take out an expert commissioner to ascertain the defects suffered by the AC. She had failed to do so. Complainant was examined as PW1.
The reason for not taking out an expert commissioner is stated as follows in page 3 lines 16 to 18 & lines 1 & 2 in page 4: “ACയുടെ inputന്റെ room temperature പരിശോധിക്കാന് കമ്മീഷന് എടുക്കുകയോ മറ്റോ ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ടോ എന്ന് ചോദിച്ചാല് AC complaint ആണെന്ന് അവര് സമ്മതിച്ചത് കൊണ്ട് അതിന്റെ ആവശ്യമില്ല.”
She also expressed her unwillingness to take out an expert commissioner in lines 6 to 10 of page 4: “കോടതിയില് നിന്ന് കമ്മീഷന് എടുത്ത് പരിശോധിക്കാന് ഒരുക്കമാണോ എന്ന് ചോദിച്ചാല് ഞാന് അതിനു തയ്യാറല്ല. അത് complaint ആണെന്ന് അവര് പറഞ്ഞു കഴിഞ്ഞു. മാറ്റി തരാമെന്നു അവര് പറഞ്ഞു.”
8. Even though the complainant has stated that the OPs had admitted that the AC is suffering from complainants, on a perusal Exts. A1 to A19, we could not find any admissions by the OPs that the AC was suffering from any complaints. The sole major piece of evidence that the complainants rely on, whereby the service personnel of the 2nd OP has expressed their willingness to replace the AC is Ext.A18 dated 5/4/2023. A mere undertaking to replace the AC cannot ipso facto lead to a conclusion that the AC is suffering from any manufacturing defect.
9. Further, the complainant has no case that the technician of the OP has not approached her. She has stated in page 4 of her deposition that the technician has approached here somewhere between 20 to 25 times.
10. Even if we consider that there is a defect in the product, the 2nd OP has expressed their willingness to replace the Unit thereby seeking quietus to the dispute within 2 months of the filing of the complaint before O.P.s. But nothing is forthcoming as to whether the complainant is ready and willing for such a new AC/replacement. There is no pleading whatsoever. The only prayer she has is that she needs the cost of the AC returned with 12% interest.
11. She has also admitted that she had used the AC for only one day i.e. on 21/2/2023. We cannot hold that the product is suffering from any manufacturing defect after the complainant having used the same for one day alone.
12. Thus, we hold that the OP has provided after sale services to the complainant.
Issue No.2
13. It can be seen that subsequent to filing of her complainant, the OP has provided ample after sales services and also agreed to replace the AC. What is absent is the consent of the complainant in accepting the offer of the 2nd OP in replacing the AC.
14. Therefore, we hold that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
Issue No. 3
15. Complainant is not entitled to the relief as sought for. She has sought for refund of Rs.53,800/- together with interest @12%, refund of Rs. 5,000/- paid as electricity charges, Rs.1 lakh as compensation and for incidental and ancillary reliefs.
16. Since the OP2 has already expressed their readiness and willingness to replace the A/C as early as 5/4/2023, the complainant is not entitled to the cost, and compensation.
17. Even though the complainant has produced Ext.A19 to prove that she had incurred electricity charges to a tune Rs.5,000/-, Ext.A19 does not prove that the said amount is an increased amount, or that the charges reduced subsequent to non-usage of the AC or that it was due to the usage of AC that Rs.5,000/- was arrived at. Therefore, this reliefs also cannot be granted.
Issue No.4
18. In view of the discussions and findings arrived at above, we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
19. Yet, as the 2nd O.P. has expressed their willingness to hand over a new A/C, we direct the 2nd OP to issue a fresh communication within 10 days of receipt of a copy of this order to the complainant intimating their readiness and willingness to replace the A/C. The complainant is also at liberty to take initiative by issuing a communication to the O.P.s expressing her readiness and willingness to accept an A/C. If the complainant expresses her readiness within 15 days of receipt of the aforesaid communication so issued by the O.P., the 2nd OP shall replace the present A/C with a new one of the same description. Thereon, the complainant shall return the A/C which is the subject matter of this dispute to the agents of the O.P.s.
If an A/C of the same description is not available, the 2nd OP shall permit the complainant to choose another A/C of her choice. In such an eventuality, the complainant need to pay the difference of cost alone.
Pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Original tax invoice (page 2) dated 20/2/2023
Ext.A2 – Original invoice dated 23/3/2023
Ext.A3 - Original operating and installation instructions for AC
Ext.A4 - Print out of job ID RO9032319380940
Ext.A5 - Print out of communication dated 16/3/2023
Ext.A6 - Copy of email communication dated 5/4/2023
Ext.A7 - Print out of email communication dated 12/3/2023 from complainant to OP2
Ext.A8 - Print out of email communication dated 12/3/2023 from OP2 to complainant
Ext.A9 - Print out of email communication dated 14/3/2023 from complainant to OP2
Ext.A10 - Print out of email communication dated 15/3/2023 from complainant to OP2
Ext.A11 - Print out of email communication dated 16/3/2023 from complainant to OP2
Ext.A12 - Print out of email communication dated 16/3/2023 from Techno Service to
complainant
Ext.A13 - Print out of email communication dated 17/3/2023 from Techno Service to
complainant
Ext.A14 - Print out of email communication dated 17/3/2023 from complainant to Techno
service
Ext.A15 - Print out of email communication dated 22/3/2023 from complainant to Techno
service
Ext.A16 - Print out of email communication dated 04/4/2023 from complainant to Techno
service
Ext.A17 - Print out of email communication dated 05/4/2023 from complainant to Techno
service
Ext.A18 - Print out of email communication dated 05/4/2023 from Techno Service to
complainant
Ext.A19 -Original bill dated 22/12/2023 issued from KSEB
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Original report dated 2/7/2024
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 – Geetha (Complainant)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
