Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

58/2013

Manager, State of India, Commercial Branch, - Complainant(s)

Versus

George Enterprises, rep. by Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                              Complaint presented on  :  11.03.2013

                                                                  Order pronounced on : 07.12.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE  07^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.58/2013

 

 

Manager,

State Bank of India,

Commercial Branch,

#:232 NSC Bose Road,

Chennai – 01.

                                                                                 ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

 

1. George Enterprises,

By its Manager,

#:15 Nelson Manickam Road,

Choolaimedu Chennai – 94.

 

2.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,

By its Manager,

6^th Floor “Spic Building” Annexe,

#:88 Mount Road,

Guindy Chennai – 32.

...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                   : 14.03.2013

Counsel for Complainant                       : Mr.V.Haribabu

Counsel for 1^st Opposite party                  : M/s.D.Jose Daniel, P.Kumar, T.Ashok 

                                                                    Kumar, M.Alala Sundaram & P.W. Jeya

                                                                 Kumar Arul

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                       : M/s. K.Jayaraman,N.Indhumathi &

                                                                  D.Asenthamani     

 

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had purchased a Panasonic LCD TV on payment of Rs.42,000/- with accessories on 24.08.2012 from the 1^st Opposite Party  which was manufactured  by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The said TV was purchased by the Complainant for the purpose of Video conference with bank officials at Corporate Centre, Mumbai scheduled to be held on 07.09.2012. The 1^st Opposite Party assured to install the LCD TV and however failed to do the same. Hence the Complainant considering the urgency, with the aid of technicians installed the TV on 03.09.2012 in the conference room on his own. However the TV failed to function which was informed to the 1^st Opposite Party.  After much persuasion   the 2^nd Opposite Party inspected and tested the TV on 08.09.2012 and informed that the panel of TV was broken, hence the problem and further informed that it was not covered under the warranty. Despite the warranty the Opposite Parties failed to replace the panel is a defect. The Opposite Parties not only delayed the installation of TV and also failed to replace the broken panel exposes inherent manufacturing defect in the TV. The panel damage was caused while delivery of the TV by the 1^st Opposite Party and for the same the Complainant should not suffer. The TV remains ideal without use due to failure on the part of the Opposite Parties to replace the panel and rectify the defects and thus caused mental agony to the Complainant and thereby the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service. Hence the Complainant after writing letters to the Opposite Parties filed this Complaint to replace the broken panel of the TV or take back the TV and refund the cost of the product and also compensation for Deficiency in Service and mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

2.THE WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2 IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties admits that the Complainant purchased Panasonic LCD TV on 24.08.2012 from the 1^st Opposite Party. Usually after purchasing of TV the persons attached to the 2nd Opposite Party used to go to the purchaser place and install the TV.  But in this case the Complainant himself installed the TV with untrained and unauthorized person and caused damage to the panel and hence the TV is not working. The 1^st Opposite Party delivered the TV in good condition and at that time the Complainant has not raised any issue when the delivery was made. The Complainant is the Manager in the administration of the Bank and Complaint signed by the Manager Accounts of the bank and hence the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Complainant bank is a Nationalized Corporate Commercial Bank Branch and the LCD TV was specifically purchased with an intention of Video conference with bank officials and hence it is clear that the TV purchased to use for commercial purpose in furtherance of business prospects of the bank to add profit and therefore the Complainant cannot be a Consumer and he has no cause of action to file this Complaint. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied. Hence this Opposite Parties prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO:1

          It is an admitted fact the Complainant purchased a Panasonic LCD TV under Ex.A1 on payment of consideration of Rs.42,000/- from the 1^st Opposite Party on 24.08.2012  and the said TV was manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Complainant purchased the said TV for the purpose of Video conference with bank officials at Corporate centre scheduled on 07.09.2012.

          5. The Complainant contended that the 1^st Opposite Party failed to install the TV and therefore due to urgency the Complainant installed TV with the aid of technicians he was shocked to see the TV failed to function which was informed to the 1^st Opposite Party and however no service man has come and after much persuasion the service personnel of the 2^nd Opposite Party  visited on 08.09.2012  and inspected and tested the TV and informed that the panel of TV was broken and also he informed that the warranty not apply to replace the panel and actually while the TV was supplied the panel should have been broken and  hence the Complainant issued Ex.A5 legal notice and thereafter filed this Complaint  for the deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties .

          6. The Opposite Parties would contend that usually after purchasing the TV, the persons  attached with  the 2^nd Opposite Party used to go to the purchaser’s place and check the product and after verifying the condition of the goods supplied and then installed the same and in the case in hand the Complainant himself installed the TV with unauthorized   persons and at that time while installing the TV they have  broken the TV panel and since the Complainant himself broken the panel, the panel would not be replaced in the warranty and therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

          7. Admittedly the Complainant is a bank and he had purchased the TV for the purpose for Video conference with other bank officials. The Opposite Parties contended that since the Complainant commercial branch purchased the TV for use of the Complainant in the course of his business to augment income, the Complainant can be considered as a Consumer. The Complainant referred an order of the National Commission reported in IV (2005) CPJ 206 (NC) (Dr.Vijai Prakash Goyal Vs. The Network limited) the above order the National Commission held as follows by following another  National Commission Order.

In Jay Kay puri Engineers and Others V.Mohan Breweries & Distilleries, I (1998( CPJ 38 (NC) and many other decisions, this Commission held that purchaser of a machine would be a consumer if the defect in machine develops within warranty period even though the machine was purchased for commercial purpose. Therefore, the contention of petitioner not being a consumer is repelled being without any merit. Further, us Ultrasound Scanner purchased by petitioner developed defects within warranty period, the respondent was obliged to remove that defect despite there not being a separate agreement for service thereof.

The above order consequently applies to the facts of the case. In the case in hand also within the warranty period only the 2^nd Opposite Party service personnel found that panel broken, therefore in the case in hand also by virtue of above order the Complainant is considered as  Consumer.

          8. The Complainant purchased the TV on 24.08.2012 for the purpose of Video Conference with bank officials at Corporate Centre, Mumbai scheduled to be held on 07.09.2012. According to the Complainant, the 1^st Opposite Party assured to install the TV and since he failed to install, considering the urgency, the Complainant installed with the aid of technicians on 03.09.2012. The TV failed to function. Then after installed by the Complainant the 2^nd Opposite Party service man visited and informed that panel was broken and that is why the TV failed to function. The service man issued Ex.A4 job sheet dated 18.10.2012 and in which he had mentioned that panel broken. The Opposite Party would contend due to mishandling of technicians of the Complainant at the time of installing the TV, the panel was broken. The Complainant wrote Ex.A5 notice and for the said notice the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 replied through Ex.A6 & Ex.A7. In Ex.A7, it was mentioned that the panel was broken. The Complainant argued that they have broken the TV panel and it could have been damaged either external force allegedly  used  by the shop people or by the  persons who delivered it. Admittedly in a sealed box only the TV was delivered. There is every possibility that during transportation also the damage could have occurred. It is not the case of the 1^st Opposite Party that he had opened the pack and delivered the TV in good condition to the Complainant. Further when a product sold by the 1^st Opposite Party and their   service technicians  only install means, it is duty of the Opposite Party to see that   the sold  goods should be installed immediately by him or they have to inform to the customer that on a particular day their technician would come and install the TV. There is no condition that it is the duty of the customer to request the seller or manufacturer to send the technician to install the TV. Since, there is defect on the part of the Opposite Parties that at the time delivering the product, it was not in good condition and further even after 10 days of selling the product they have not taken any steps to install the TV, we hold that as contended by the Complainant  only at the time of delivering the TV which had defect in it and therefore we further hold that in view of such conclusion the Opposite Parties have failed to install the TV within reasonable time and after request of the Complainant they said that the panel was broken cannot be accepted and it is held that the Opposite Party only have committed Deficiency in Service.

9. POINT NO:2

          The Complainant prayed to replace the broken panel TV or refund the cost of the TV. Even though the 1^st Opposite Party sold the TV to the Complainant, he had not taken any steps to install the TV for 10 days at the Complainant premises and therefore instead of ordering to replace panel broken, it is better to order to refund the cost of the product of Rs.42,000/- would be a justifiable relief to the Complainant. The Complainant purchased the TV for the purpose to hold video conference on 07.09.2012 with his bank officials. Due to the fault in the TV the scheduled conference could not be held. Therefore the Complainant faced harassment and suffered mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.  

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.42,000/-(Rupees forty two thousand only) towards  the cost of the product  to the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

        The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 07^th day of December 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.08.2012                   Credit bill with receipt

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Warranty Manual

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     LCD TV Broken visit report

Ex.A4 dated 18.10.2012                   Job Sheet

Ex.A5 dated 18.10.2012                   Legal Notice

Ex.A6 dated 31.10.2012                   1^st Opposite Party’s letter

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     2^nd Opposite Party’s feedback

Ex.A8 dated 28.11.2012                   Complainant’s letter

Ex.A9 dated 30.11.2012                   1^st Opposite Party’s letter

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1 dated 07.09.2012                   Job No.PI-ASC-1209-021753

Ex.B2 dated Sep – 2012                   Market Quality Report

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Warranty Card

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st   OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B4 dated 21.08.2012                   Receipt No.0020237. Rs.40,000/-

Ex.B5 dated 24.08.2012                   Credit Bill vide bill No.0020268

Ex.B6 dated 24.08.2012                   Receipt No.0020274. Rs.2,000/-

Ex.B7 dated NIL                     Warranty and Manual

Ex.B8 dated 31.10.2012                   Broken Report

Ex.B9 dated 18.10.2012                   Legal notice given by the Complainant

Ex.B10 dated 31.10.2012                 Reply by the 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.B11 dated 30.11.2012                 Letter dated to the Complainant by the 1^st Opposite

                                                    Party

                            

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT