Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/263/2015

M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harbinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Suri, Adv.

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	263 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	14.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	16.10.2015

 

1. M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Limited, 6^th Floor, SPIC Building Annuxe No.88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032.
2. M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Limited, First Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001.

Through Shri Rajesh Ubbi, Authorized Signatory.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3

 

V e r s u s

1. Harbinder Singh son of Sh. Dilbagh Singh, resident of Apartment A2, Nirmal Chayya Towers, VIP Road, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

….Respondent No.1/Complainant

 

2. M/s Charanjit Associates Pvt. Limited, SCO No.1093, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal has been filed by the appellants (Opposite Parties No.2 and 3) against an order dated 26.05.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum) vide which, they alongwith Opposite Party No.1 (now respondent No.2), jointly and severally, were directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,05,000/-, towards price of the Panasonic Plasma TV Model 65VT3D to respondent No.1/complainant. They were further directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs. The above said TV unit was purchased by respondent No.1 from respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1, which is admittedly an authorized dealer of the appellants.

2.       Alongwith the aforesaid appeal, the appellants have filed an application for condonation of delay of 94 days (as per office 91 days) in filing the same, on the grounds mentioned therein.
3.       The explanation given by Counsel for the appellants, in the appeal, at the time of arguments, as also in the application aforesaid, appears to be justified. The delay stands condoned.
4.       The application is disposed of, accordingly.
5.       The appeal is ordered to be heard, at the preliminary stage.
6.       It is case of respondent No.1 that on 24.01.2012, he had paid an amount of Rs.1 lac, through a cheque to respondent No.2, for purchase of a T.V. Total price of the said TV unit was fixed at Rs.3,05,000/-. It is his further case that as he was residing in a rented accommodation, as his house was under construction, as such, it was agreed by respondent No.2 that the TV unit will be delivered to him, in the month of April, 2013.  Respondent No.1 paid an amount of Rs.2,05,000/-, to respondent No.2 on 14.12.2012, against a receipt Annexure C-2.
7.       Despite direction aforesaid, to the contrary, respondent No.2 delivered the TV unit, to the house of respondent No.1 on 17.12.2012. When confronted with his (respondent No.2) commitment that the TV unit will be delivered in the month of April 2013, it was stated that there was paucity of space in the store, on account of that TV unit was sent. Respondent No.1 was advised not to open the box, in which the TV unit was wrapped, an engineer will be sent, when to install the TV. Respondent No.1 shifted to his house, in the month of April 2013. Request was made to respondent No.2, to send some technical person to install the TV unit. One engineer came to the house of respondent No.1; opened the box in which  the TV unit was wrapped, thereupon it was observed that panel of the same (TV unit) was broken. Immediately the said TV unit was returned to respondent No.2, on 06.04.2013. The engineer who had opened the box, made his remarks on Annexure C-3, to the effect that “Piece found broken; opened in front of company by the technicians; to be send back to the dealer/not satisfied”. The said admission has been brought on record, as Annexure C-3. Respondent No.1/complainant made requests, number of times, to the appellants, to supply him a new TV unit, but to of no avail. He was told that broken part of the TV unit can be replaced against price of Rs.1,63,000/-. Besides that, repairing charges were fixed at Rs.76,538/-.
8.       It was his case that the TV unit was under warranty, as such, it was duty of the dealer and the Company to replace it with a new one, free-of-cost. Admittedly, even today, the said TV unit with its broken panel, is in possession of respondent No.2.
9.       Having no alternative, a new TV was purchased by respondent No.1, against the price of Rs.4 lacs, in the month of September 2014. Legal notice dated 28.09.2014 served by respondent No.1, upon the appellants and respondent No.2, yielded no result. Under these circumstances, the complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.698 of 2014, before the Forum, on 21.10.2014.
10.       Despite deemed service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, before the Forum, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 10.02.2015.
11.       The appellants filed their joint written reply, raising various objections like the Forum has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, as the complainant is residing at Zirakpur, and, as such, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Mohali is competent to decide the same. It was stated that warranty is only valid for one year, from the date, when the TV unit, in question, was purchased i.e. from 24.01.2012. Averments made qua opening of box in which the said TV unit was wrapped, after about a year, in the presence of installation engineer, sent by respondent No.2, were denied. It was further stated that the averment of respondent No.1 that the TV unit, in question, was to be delivered in the month of April 2013 was denied, for want of knowledge. It was averred that, may be, respondents no.1 and 2 were conniving to get undue benefit from the appellants.
12.       The complainant, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, led evidence by filing their affidavits and also brought on record numerous documents.
13.       The Forum on analysis of evidence on record, and after hearing arguments of Counsel for the complainant, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, accepted the complaint, in the manner, stated above.
14.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants.
15.       We have heard Counsel for the appellants, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence and record, very minutely.
16.       On perusal of file of the Forum and reasoning given by it, in the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment under challenge. By making reference of documents Annexures C-1 dated 24.01.2012, C-2 dated 14.12.2012, and Annexure C-3 dated 06.04.2013, it was rightly said by the Forum that the TV unit was purchased by respondent No.1, for a price of Rs.3,05,000/-, which was delivered at his residence on 17.12.2012. By making reference of Annexures C-2 and C-3, it was said that when the box containing TV unit, in question, was opened by the installation engineer sent by respondent No.2, its panel was found broken. Perusal of the original file establishes that it was so mentioned in document Annexure C-3/C-13 by the said engineer. It is also coming out from record that on original retail invoice Annexure C-2A, the said engineer has written that the TV unit, in question, alongwith 3D goggles returned back to the dealer, due to crack observed on screen of the same (TV). By noting above facts, the Forum rightly opined that the TV unit was taken in possession of respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1, by making an endorsement on document Annexure C-12. It was further rightly stated that box, in which the TV unit was wrapped, was opened in presence of the installation engineer sent by respondent No.2, on 06.04.2013. Taking note of above date, it was said that the TV unit was under the period of warranty i.e. one year. Contention of Counsel for the appellants that findings of the Forum are contrary to the record, needs rejection, in view of the facts mentioned in the earlier part of this order. Further arguments were raised by Counsel for the appellants, that for any fault committed by the dealer/respondent No.2, the Company/appellants, cannot be penalized. As per facts, respondent No.2, despite service failed to put in appearance, before the Forum, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte. Vide order under challenge, the appellants and respondent No.2 were held liable, jointly and severally to comply with the order impugned, which obviously means that after making payment to respondent No.1, the appellants can recover the amount, if any due, from respondent No.2. 
17.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
19.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

16.10.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

Rg