25 Sep 2023 12:30 PM GMT
The North-West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Sanjay Kumar (President), Nipur Chandna (Member) and Rajesh (Member), found Panasonic India Private Limited liable for manufacturing a faulty air conditioner (AC) that remained dysfunctional despite multiple attempts at repair and replacement. As a remedy, the District Commission directed Panasonic to provide the...
The North-West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Sanjay Kumar (President), Nipur Chandna (Member) and Rajesh (Member), found Panasonic India Private Limited liable for manufacturing a faulty air conditioner (AC) that remained dysfunctional despite multiple attempts at repair and replacement. As a remedy, the District Commission directed Panasonic to provide the complainant with a consolidated compensation of Rs. 30,000 to ensure justice was served.
Miss Reena (“Complainant”) purchased an air conditioner (“AC”) from Yash Electronic World (“Seller”), specifically a Panasonic Model No. CUBE-ZU20NKYP, manufactured by Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”), for Rs. 24,000. After its installation on April 5, 2015, the AC allegedly malfunctioned shortly thereafter. The complainant initiated a complaint with the manufacturer’s Customer Care. A technician visited the complainant's premises, inspected the AC, and reported that the gas had leaked, subsequently refilling it. Despite this, the AC malfunctioned again within a short period. Additional complaints were filed with the manufacturer however, no solution was reached. The complainant claimed that the AC was still under warranty but alleged that no remedial action was taken by either the manufacturer or the seller despite repeated complaints.
In response to the perceived lack of response, the complainant served a legal notice on July 6, 2015, demanding Rs. 1 lakh for the inconvenience caused and the replacement of the malfunctioning AC with a new one. However, both the seller and the manufacturer failed to respond to the legal notice. Consequently, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-West Delhi (“District Commission”) seeking redress for her grievances.
The manufacturer failed to appear before the District Commission. The seller on the other hand contended that it responded promptly to the complainant’s grievances as they arose and asserted that there was no manufacturing defect in the AC as claimed by the complainant. The seller also pointed towards the final resolution of the complainant’s grievance after which no further complaints regarding the non-functioning of the AC were raised.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission carefully reviewed the evidence on record about the numerous complaints filed by the complainant shortly after the installation of the AC. After a thorough examination, the District Commission concluded that it was evident from the entire sequence of events that the complainant experienced significant inconvenience despite having purchased a brand-new AC from the seller. Despite numerous attempts to resolve the issue, the AC remained non-functional, ultimately leading the complainant to file a consumer complaint against both the seller and the manufacturer.
Consequently, the District Commission determined that merely replacing the AC would not suffice to deliver justice in this case. Therefore, the complaint was allowed, and the manufacturer was instructed to compensate the complainant with a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to cover mental agony and legal costs.
Case Title: Ms. Reena vs. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Complaint Case No. CC/1086/2015
Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.
Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.