Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/71/2017

Chuladhar Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-M/s. Choudhury Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. S. K. Jaiswal & associates

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 71/2017

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Chuladhar @ Chakradhar Pradhan,  

S/o- Bipin Bihari Pradhan,

R/O-Ambiranagar, PS/PO- Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur.                                                                 ……..…..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. M/S Choudhury Electronics,

At-Kacha Market, Near Bhubaneswari Temple, Burla,

Po/Ps-Burla, Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.

2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd,

6^th Floor, Spic Building, Annexe, No.88,

Mount Road, Gulndy, Chennai,

Tamil Nadu, India-600032.

3. H.P. Electronics, Das Complex, Near LIC Building, Budharaja

Dist-Sambalpur.                                                            …..….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. S.K.Jaiswal, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P No.1              :-         Ex-parte
3. For the O.P No.2              :-         Sri. K.C.Mohapatra, Advocate
4. For the O.P No.3              :-         Sri. P.K.Kar, Advocate & Associates

 

Date of Filing:16.10.2017,Date of Hearing :XXXXX, Date of Judgement : 24.01.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the OP No. 1 is the dealer of Panasonic brand TV and other appliance. The OP No. 2 is the service centre for Sambalpur Region and the OP No. 3 is the manufacturer of Panasonic TV and appliances. The Complainant has purchased one Panasonic LED TV on 26.10.2016 for Rs. 68,001/- from the OP No. 1. The said LED TV was working till September 2017 but subsequently the half of the screen of the said TV got black and the picture displayed in a hazy and unclear for which the Complainant informed the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 advised the petitioner to approach the OP No. 2 for repairing of the defects as the TV was under warranty. The Complainant informed the OP No. 2 about the problem. Thereafter the mechanic of the OP No.2 visited the house of the Complainant and after examining, he told the Complainant that the defect is due to physical damage and hence, the warranty will not cover and the Complainant has to pay Rs. 30,000/- for its repairing. Since the date of installation of the aforesaid TV by the OP No. 1 in the house of the Complainant, it has been used with precaution and utmost care and ther is no physical damage on the part of the Complainant and the Complainant very much knows that in case there is physical damage, it will not be covered under warranty. The Complainant told the said facts to the mechanic of the OP No. 2 but he did not listen and repeatedly told the Complainant to repair the same by paying the cost. The OP No. 2 has also not issued any job card nor registered the Complaint of the Complainant. Now the said TV is of no use and the Complainant has to pay the monthly charges of the pay chhannels in spite of not viewing the same without his fault. Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the OPs, the Complainant got inconveniences, debarred from watching TV which was most essential for his family for entertainment.
2. The reply of the OP No. 2 is that the Complainant approached the OP No. 3 after few months of the date of purchase of the LED TV and the OP No.3 readily agreed to provide service but it was found that the “Front Display panel was broken” and that, therefore an estimate of Rs. 36,060/- for repair was given to the Complainant by the service engineer, but the same was flately refused by the Complainant and he insisted on getting the Product repaired free of cost. Thus, it is clear that the Complainant himself is at fault for traversing beyond the warranty terms and conditions. Regarding the same the OP No. 2 relied upon two case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2508 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors. (Civil Appeal No s 4912-4913 of 2011 decided on July 4, 2011). So in absence of any deficiency of service, or negligence in service, present Complaint application is fit to be dismissed at the very outset, imposing heavy cost on the Complainant for tarnishing the reputation of the OP No. 2 and implicating it in this false and frivolous litigation.

The Written Statement of the OP No. 3 is that soon after receipt of the complaint on dtd. 19.09.2017, the service personnel of the OP No. 3 rushed to Burla on the same day where the TV set was earlier installed by the OP No. 3, in order to attend the complaint made by the Complainant. But to the utter surprise of the OP No. 3, the Complainant had already shifted to Sambalpur before lodging of the complaint and when contacted over phone the Complainant asked the service personnel to come to Ambira Nagar, Sambalpur where the TV set was installed. After shifting from Burla to Sambalpur the said TV set has been installed by some unauthorized person at the instance of the Complainant. On the same day at about 6.30 p.m the service personnel of the OP No. 3 reached at the home of the Complainant and after examining the TV set it found that the ‘Panel’ is broken. The ‘Panel’ might be broken on transit while shifting from Burla to Sambalpur or may be during installation by any unskilled/unauthorized person. The broken panel appeared as such that it is only possible if some physical force is applied on the screen. The OP No. 3 is also filed photographs of said broken ‘Panel’. To the knowledge of the service personnel & warranty conditions, the present complaint will not cover under warranty and thereby he asked the Complainant to pay the estimated repairing cost & prepare a job card. So the present case is not maintainable against the OP No. 3 and liable to be dismissed with cost.

ISSUES

1. Is the Complainant a consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service in part of O.Ps?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant a consumer of the O.Ps?

The OP No. 1 is the dealer of Panasonic brand TV and other appliance. The OP No. 2 is the service center for Sambalpur Region and the OP No. 3 is the manufacturer of Panasonic TV and appliances. The Complainant has purchased one Panasonic LED TV on 26.10.2016 for total price of Rs. 68,001/- from the OP No. 1. So the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency in service in part of O.P No. 1?

The ‘Panel’ might be broken on transit while shifting from Burla to Sambalpur or may be during installation by any unskilled/unauthorized person as per version of the O.P. No.3. As per the term and condition of the warranty card and submission in his complain petition by the Complainant, the Complainant very much knows that in case there will be physical damage, it will not be covered under warranty. Thus, it is clear that the Complainant himself is at fault for traversing beyond the warranty terms and conditions. Hence the O.Ps have no deficiency in service.

 Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From the facts and evidences submitted by the parties, the Complainant is not entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition from the OPs.

                             ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 24^th day of Jan, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.