Delhi

East Delhi

CC/202/2014

R.D MOTHO - Complainant(s)

Versus

KALPANA DIGITAL - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  202/14

 

Shri R.D. Mohto

R/o G-2, Block-3, Type-22

Kalyan Vas, Delhi                                                                             ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Kalpana Digital World

1/100, 12, Main Vikas Marg

Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi

 

2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.

1^st Floor, ABW Tower

IFFCO Chowk, Sector-25

Gurgaon – 122 001, Haryana                                                        ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 07.03.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 10.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 19.04.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri R.D. Mohto against Kalpana Digital World (OP-1) and Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) praying for directions to OP to replace the TV or return Rs. 15,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony & pain and Rs. 20,000/- cost of litigation. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Panasonic LED TV Model No. TH-L24 X M60 (TP) on 28.08.2013 vide invoice                      no. K-03287/13-14 from M/s. Kalpana Digital World (OP-1) for a sum of             Rs. 15,000/-.  The said LED developed problem on 03.09.2013 just after five days of purchase for which the complainant raised a complaint to               M/s. Kalpana Digital World (OP-1) on 05.09.2013.  OP-1 transferred the complaint to M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), the manufacturer. On 25.09.2013, technician visited the house of the complainant and solved the problem by changing mother board. 

After few days, LED TV again developed same problem for which the complainant lodged a complaint with OP-1 and OP-2.  The complainant made several phone calls to OP, but did not receive proper response.  Complainant’s son received an email from Mr. Shishir Kumar, official of OP-2, stating that they were ready to repair TV as per company policy, but after that complainant did not receive any phone call or email. 

Feeling aggrieved with the acts of OPs, the complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this forum.

3.         In the reply, M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) has taken various pleas such as the complaint was received on 28.11.2013 for the first time so, there was no reason to send its technician to check the television on 25.09.2013; complaint received on` 28.11.2013 was duly attended and A Board of the television was replaced on 18.12.2013.  It was also stated that after receiving the complaint on 31.12.2013, the complainant did not allow the OP to inspect the said television to resolve the grievance.  Other facts have also been denied. 

No WS filed by OP-1.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP-2 has been filed by the complainant, wherein the complainant denied all the contents of the WS and reiterated the contents of his complaint. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited copy of bill and warranty card (Ex.CW1/1 and CW1/2) and copy of mail (Ex.CW1/3). 

            In defence, OP- 2 has examined Shri Sushil Kumar, authorized representative, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.    

6.         We have heard both the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It is admitted that A board of the said LED was replaced after 3 months of purchase.  Further perusal of Ex.CW1/3 reveals that OP was willing to repair the product as per company’s policy.  When OP is willing to repair the set as per company’s policy, then no deficiency in services can be fastened on OP.  Further, the complainant has failed to mention any date or complaint numbers, even no job sheet has been placed on record to substantiate the allegations against OP.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                    Member              

     

   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President