Haryana

StateCommission

A/663/2016

KARAN SONI - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAIN ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.SAHU

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      663 of 2016

Date of Institution:      19.07.2016

Date of Decision :       27.10.2016

 

Karan Soni son of Pawan Kumar son of Sheo Chand, resident of Shop No.28-B, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Jain Enterprises, S.B.I. Road, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its proprietor/partner.

2.      M/s Panasonic Authorized Service Centre, Near Vishal Mega Mart, Behind Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad,Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its proprietor.

3.      Panasonic India Private Limited, 6^th Floor, “Spic Building”, Annexe No.88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India-600032 through its Managing Director/Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                            

 

Present:               None for appellant.

                             Shri Mukhbir Singh Punia, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Case called several time since morning but none has appeared on behalf of the appellant.  This Commission thinks it appropriate to decide the appeal after hearing learned counsel for the respondents and going through the case file.

2.      The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated June 13^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.             

2.      Karan Soni-complainant/appellant, purchased one Light Emitting Diode (LED) 32”, Panasonic Make, Model-32SV6D, on April 24^th, 2015 for Rs.28,900/- vide bill Annexure C-1, from M/s Jain Enterprises-Opposite Party No.1, the authorised dealer of Panasonic India Private Limited-Opposite Party No.3 (manufacturer).  After about 2-3 months, the LED developed defects. The complainant approached M/s Panasonic Authorized Service Center-authorised Service Centre of the opposite party No.3 but the defects in the LED could not be removed.  Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The Opposite Parties-respondents, in their written version, pleaded that the engineer of the service center checked the unit and found the ‘Panel of LED’ broken.  The warranty of LED was barred due to physical damage.  The company was ready to repair the LED in accordance with the conditions of the warranty but the complainant refused to pay the repair charges. 

4.      As per the Job Sheet (Annexure R-2), LED was checked by engineer of opposite party No.3 and it was found that panel of the LED was broken and as such, it was beyond the warranty.  In view of this, the order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 27.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK