Being aggrieved by a direction to refund the cost of a Television Set, a Multi-national Company, namely, M/s Panasonic India Private Limited, has preferred this Revision Petition questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 16.10.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal no.263 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 26.05.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint no.CC/698/2014. By the said order, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner and its dealer, Respondent No.2 in this Petition, to jointly and severally pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹3,05,000/- being the Invoice price of a Panasonic Plasma Television Model ..3.. 65VT3D, along with a sum of ₹25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment and costs of ₹10,000/- . 2. At the outset, it is significant to note that 50% of the amount awarded by the District Forum already stands deposited by Respondent No.2 in execution proceedings and, therefore, the actual liability of the petitioner towards the Complainant would be ₹1,70,000/-. 3. On 24.01.2012, the Complainant/Respondent no.1 herein, booked a Television Set of the aforenoted model, priced at ₹3,05,000/- with the authorized dealer of the Petitioner, by paying an advance amount of ₹1,00,000/-. It was agreed that since the Complainant was residing in a rented accommodation, the Television set will be delivered in the month of April 2013, when the construction work of his own house would be completed. The balance sale consideration of ₹2,05,000/- was paid to the Dealer on 14.12.2012. Somehow, the dealer delivered the Television set at the rented residence of the Complainant on 17.12.2012, stating that there was paucity of space in its store. Be that as it may, on shifting to his own house, the Complainant called for a Technical person from the Petitioner (manufacturer) to have the Television installed. On opening the sealed packing, Petitioner’s technician found that the Television was damaged. Accordingly, on the ..4.. Installation Slip he recorded “piece found broken; opened in front of technicians of the company; to be sent back to the dealer/not satisfied”. 4. Having failed in its efforts to have the damaged Television replaced and on being asked to pay a sum of ₹1,63,000/- as cost of repairs of the Television, the Complainant filed the Complaint, after issuing a legal notice to the Dealer as well as to the Manufacturer. 5. The Complaint was resisted by the Petitioner. The Dealer was ex parte. 6. On evaluation of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that failure to entertain the Complaint by the Petitioner, despite the fact that the product was within the warranty period, amounted to deficiency in service on its part resulting in immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. Consequently, accepting the Complaint, the District Forum issued the aforenoted directions. 7. Being unsuccessful in its Appeal before the State Commission, as noted above, the Manufacturer is before us. 8. We have heard learned Counsel of the parties. 9. It is strenuously urged by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that since the Television set was in the custody of the Complainant for almost four months, there was imminent possibility of its ..5.. being damaged at his hands during this period and therefore, the Petitioner could not be fastened with the liability to refund its cost price, as directed by the lower Fora. 10. In the light of the afore-quoted endorsement by Petitioner’s own technician and in the absence of any observation by him to the effect that either the outer packing was open or damaged as also the fact that the packing was admittedly opened by him, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel. 11. The concurrent finding of fact by the both the Forums below to the effect that when the packing of the Television was opened by the technician of the Petitioner, it was found to be damaged and therefore, it could not be held that the Complainant was responsible for damage to the Television, being based on cogent material, in particular, the aforenoted endorsement by the Petitioner’s technician, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction. 12. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly with costs, quantified at ₹10,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the Complainant within four weeks from today. 13. It will be open to the Complainant to withdraw 50% of the decretal amount, deposited by the Petitioner with the District Forum in ..6.. terms of order dated 18.01.2016 as also the amount stated to have been deposited by the Respondent No.2 in the District Forum in Execution Proceedings, if not already withdrawn. |
