Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

413/2010

Gunasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager , Panasonic India Pvt Ltd., & another - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 16.11.2010

                                                                          Date of Order  : 23.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.413/2010

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 23^rd  DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

Gunasekar,

S/o. Mr. P.A. Venkatesalu Naidu,

No.2/18 G1, Sri Murugan Apartments,

Sivsailam Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                    .. Complainant.                                                         

 

   ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

Panasonic,

Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,

6^th Floor Spic Building Annexe,

No.8, Mount Road,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.

 

2. The Manager,

Shubh Labh Panasonic Brandshop,

No.85, G.N. Chetty Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant            : M/s. S. Natarajan

Counsel for 1^st opposite party   : M/s. K. Jayaraman & another

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party  : Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to replace the defective LCD TV 32 inches (wall mounting) with a new one along with fresh warranty, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice with cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that on 13.07.2010, he purchased a Panasonic LCD TV 32” from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.23,400/- with two years warranty.  Further the complainant submits that within one week of installation, the power card of the LCD TV failed resulting the TV dead.  The complainant made a complaint to the opposite party for due rectification.  The opposite party also after due inspection, replaced the Power Card and with an assurance that the entire LCD TV set will be replaced.  Further the complainant submits that once again the TV had the same repair.  The opposite party has not come forward to replace the TV as per the assurance.  Hence the complainant issued telegraphic notice dated:05.10.2010 for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:18.10.2010. Even after repeated reminders, the opposite parties has not replaced the TV having the manufacturing defect.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony to the complainant.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 1^st opposite party states that the complaint itself is a gross abuse of process of law filed only for the purpose of harassing and pressurizing the 1^st opposite party for unreasonable demands.   The 1^st opposite party is a manufacturer.   Further the 1^st opposite party states that a minor problem had arisen in the said LCD TV due to voltage fluctuation in August 2010.  Immediately after the receipt of the complaint, the service persons of this respondent inspected the TV and replaced the Power board which was burned to the entire satisfaction of the complainant with an advice to take suitable precaution against voltage fluctuation.    In the month of October 2010 also, similar problem arises was attended by the service persons.  At that time, the complainant insisted for replacement of entire television set.  For minor repair in Power Board, the entire TV set cannot be replaced.  Even though as a gesture of goodwill, this opposite party agreed to replace the LCD TV with a new one vide letter dated:11.11.2010, this complaint is filed with a malafide intention to extract money from the opposite party.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Inspite of sufficient time is given the 2^nd opposite party has neither filed his written version nor appeared before this Forum.  Hence the 2^nd opposite party was set Exparte.

4.     In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of the defective Panasonic LCD TV 32 inches (wall mounting) with fresh warranty as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice with cost of Rs.15,000/- as prayed for?

6.     On point:-

The 2^nd opposite party remained Exparte.  Both the complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The complainant pleaded and contended that on 13.07.2010, he purchased a Panasonic LCD TV 32” from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.23,400/- as per Ex.A1 invoice with two years warranty is admitted.  Further the contention of the complainant is that within one week of installation, the power card of the LCD TV failed resulting the TV dead.  The complainant made a complaint to the opposite party for due rectification.  The opposite party also after due inspection, replaced the Power Card and with an assurance that the entire LCD TV set will be replaced.  Further the contention of the complainant is that once again the TV had the same repair.  The opposite party has not come forward to replace the TV as per the assurance.  Hence the complainant issued telegraphic notice dated:05.10.2010 as per Ex.A2 for which, the opposite party sent reply vide Ex.A3 dated:18.10.2010.  Even after repeated reminders, the opposite parties has not replaced the TV having the manufacturing defect.  The act of the opposite parties in service and replacement amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which caused great mental agony.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trade practise.   Since the opposite party admitted in its written version that “without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Answering Respondent once again expresses its ready and willingness to replace the television of the complainant as was earlier informed to the complainant on 11.11.2010”, the complainant has not explained the basis for such huge compensation.  The complainant was constrained to file this case claiming to replace the above said defective LCD TV and a total compensation for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards deficiency in service, mental agony, pain and unfair trade practice with cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

7.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complaint itself is a gross abuse of process of law filed only for the purpose of harassing and pressurizing the 1^st opposite party for unreasonable demands.   But admittedly, the complainant purchased the impugned LCD TV as per Ex.A1 from the 2^nd opposite party for which, the 1^st opposite party is a manufacturer.    Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that a minor problem had arisen in the said LCD TV due to voltage fluctuation in August 2010.  But no record.  Immediately after the receipt of the complaint, the service persons of the 1^st opposite party inspected the TV and replaced the Power board which was burned to the entire satisfaction of the complainant with an advice to take suitable precaution against voltage fluctuation.  In the month of October 2010 also, similar problem arises was attended by the service persons.  At that time, the complainant insisted for replacement of entire television set.  For minor repair in Power Board, the entire TV set cannot be replaced.  Even though as a gesture of goodwill, this opposite party agreed to replace the LCD TV with a new one vide letter dated:11.11.2010, this complaint is filed on 16.11.2010 with a malafide intention to extract money.    But on a careful perusal of records, it is very clear that the TV purchased by the complainant had Power Board problem at the very inception.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties are directed to replace the TV model with usual warranty and a  compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the Panasonic LCD TV 32 inches (wall mounting) with a brand new one within one month from date of this order to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of July 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of invoice
		Copy of the complainant’s letter to the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of telegraphic notice to the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of reply of the 1st opposite party to the complainant

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	13.07.2010	Copy of purchase bill
Ex.B2	05.10.2010	Copy of Job No.PI-ASC-1010-005704
Ex.B3	05.10.2010	Copy of letter of  the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.B4	11.11.2010	Copy of reply of 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B5	18.10.2010	Copy of reply of 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B6		Copies of Blue Dart courier Docket No.12948922744 dated:18.10.2010, docket No.32601235332 dated:20.10.2010, Docket No.12982604190 dated:22.10.2010 and Docket No.12982197362 dated:12.11.2010

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT