Mumbai: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in an appeal filed before it has ordered that an air conditioner be replaced within three months of the order and the complainant be given Rs 10,000 compensation for mental harassment caused and Rs 2,500 towards litigation.
The order was passed by Justice S.P. Tavade, president and A. Z. Khwaja, judicial member of the SCDRC. It was passed on an appeal made by Dadar resident, Vikas V. Pathare against Vijay Sales (Mahim Branch), Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., reignion office in Mumbai and Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., corporate office in Haryana.
Pathare had appealed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, central Mumbai dated July 12, 2018, which had directed that the AC be repaired and compensation of Rs 2,000 be given along with costs of litigation.
Pathare, a senior citizen, had purchased a window air-conditioner of one ton capacity on November 26, 2016 with one year warranty for Rs 21,890 from Vijay Sales. He found the air conditioner was not of good quality and emitting great noise and vibration from the beginning.
On complaint to Vijay Sales, a technician was deputed and he fixed rubber packing as well as wooden stiffener which was purchased at cost of Rs 2,000. but that did not stop the noise and vibration. On complaint to Panasonic India, regional office, they deputed their service team.
A replacement of the compressor was sought, which was done but still there was no benefit and the air-conditioner continued to make noise and vibration. In July 2017, Panasonic sent a letter stating that their certified engineer did not find any technical fault with the air conditioner which was sold to the complainant.
Later, when the decibel was checked, it was higher than data of Panasonic Company. The complainant therefore demanded replacement of the air-conditioner or refund of the price in August 2017. Vijay sales, however, refused to replace the air conditioner. It stated that their job is restricted only to sale of the item provided and installation of goods and they were not responsible for technical defects.
However, during the hearing, the commission observed that the three opponents who had sold the air conditioner to the complainant are under bounden duty to supply a good quality air conditioner free from all defects which was not done in the present case. It then passed the above order after allowing the appeal.
