Signing you in

President P V Jayarajan and members Preetha G Nair and Viju V R observed that the seller, even though it received the notice, did not appear before the commission and was set ex parte.

“The complainant alleges that the replaced refrigerator was also not working properly. Even though the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove that there is a manufacturing defect, the 2nd opposite party (Panasonic) has admitted that they are ready to refund the amount. The 1st opposite party (seller) is also liable as they are the dealer of the 2nd opposite party,” the July 14 order said.

On December 19, 2020, the complainant had bought a refrigerator manufactured by Panasonic India and sold by the Pittappillil Agencies, for Rs 72,000. From December 25, 2020 onwards, the product had started showing erratic cooling or no cooling at all.

The complainant informed the customer service desk of Panasonic bout the faults of the product in early January, 2021, and consequently a service technician of the company had visited twice in February to attend to the fault.

However, there was no response from Panasonic regarding the demand for a refund by the complainant. She again sent him a reminder, to which the technician had replied that the matter had been referred to the head office of Panasonic for decision.

The complainant submitted that she had suffered substantial monetary loss and mental stress due to the defective product, as a lot of costly medicines meant for her mother, which were stored in the product as well as the replaced product, were spoiled beyond serviceability and had at times been a life-threatening trepidation for her mother who was in a critical state of health.

She added that due to the product’s technical fault, she was constrained to store the life-saving medicines in her neighbours’ refrigerators, which had caused huge inconvenience to them on more than one occasion, which in turn had caused her severe mental trauma and embarrassment.

She further submitted that on multiple occasions she had purchased and stored ready-to-cook as well as cooked food meant for her siblings and relatives who were visiting her ailing mother on her last days, but due to the faulty product, the food such stored were rendered unpalatable and thus she had to put up an extremely sorry face in front of her relatives, which in turn had caused huge embarrassment to her and her husband.

She contended that both the original product as well as the replaced one had incurable manufacturing defects, and they are the result of a faulty design. The act of Panasonic and the seller amounted to a deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

The court observed that the complainant had produced documents supporting his claim. Though he did not submit any expert evidence to prove a manufacturing defect, Panasonic India has admitted that it is willing to refund the amount. The court held that the dealer, Laxmi Jayachandran, was also liable.

The court directed Panasonic India and Laxmi Jayachandran to refund Rs 72,000 with 6 per cent interest from October 29, 2021 and to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony along with Rs 3,000 as litigation costs. The court directed the parties to comply with the order within one month, failing which 9 per cent per annum interest would be imposed till the date of realisation.

The ruling underscores that companies may be held liable for unfair trade practices if they fail to fix recurring faults in their product, particularly where consumers act upon such representations.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.