Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/176/2015

Karan Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S jain Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

R.K Verma

11 May 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.176 of 2015.

Date of Instt.:24.08.2015.

Date of Decision: 13.06.2016.

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

 

...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 Center, 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.

..Opposite Parties.

Before:       Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.    

 

Present:       Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties.

                  

 

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a LED of 32 inch of Panasonic company Model 32SV6D, bearing Sr. No.141CC47972 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.28,900/-  vide bill/ invoice No.11277 dated 24.4.2015. One year warranty of the LED was given to the complainant by opposite party no.1. The op no.2 is authorized service center of the company and op no.3 is the manufacturer. It is further averred that just within two/three months of the purchase, the LED started to create loud noise at the time of starting and even the speakers of the LED were also not good and there was also noise in the speakers.  In this regard, the complainant made complaint to op no.1 upon which its mechanic checked the same and temporarily removed the defect. It is further averred that thereafter some dots/ marks started coming on the screen of the LED and even lining started coming on its screen and it was not possible to see anything on the LED. On the complaint of complainant, op no.1 sent the authorized service mechanic of op no.2 who after checking the LED, stated that it is not possible to repair the LED due to manufacturing defect. After that, the complainant visited op no.2 many times and requested to replace the LED with new one as same is having manufacturing defect, but op no.2 did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant also visited op no.1 with the said request, but ops No.1 & 2 refused to do so. Thus, there is great deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- from ops on account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by him. The  complainant has also prayed that opposite parties be directed to refund the original cost of the LED alongwith interest. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 resisted the complaint by filing reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; suppression of material facts; locus standi and that complaint without any technical report is not maintainable. It has also been submitted that Panasonic India Private limited is a well reputed company and has established a large number of service centers throughout India in order to provide good and satisfactory after sale services to its customers. The complainant regarding his complaint about the alleged LED approached the company on 20.7.2015. The engineer of service center gave the complete attention to the complainant, visited his house and checked the unit and found that the Panel of LED TV is broken. He told to the complainant that the warranty of LED is barred due to physical damage and its repair will be on paid basis, but the complainant refused to pay the repair charges and was adamant to get the LED replaced by new one. It has been submitted that company is still ready to repair the LED in accordance with the conditions of warranty. The company provides one year warranty and warranty means repairs not replacement and there is no warranty in case the product is liquid/ water logged, serial number missing, physically damaged, and the product is mishandled or tampered. It has also been submitted that complaint has been filed without any expert opinion and merely by the oral version of the complainant, it cannot be ascertained that the LED TV is not working properly. The LED TV is required to be checked by the proper analysis/ test by the appropriate laboratory as per Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections have been reiterated, the contents of the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                Opposite party no.1 did not file reply and learned counsel for ops made a statement that the reply filed on behalf of ops no.2 &3 be also read on behalf of op no.1.

5.                The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of invoice No.11277 dated 24.4.2015 as Annexure C1. On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Atul Sharma as Annexure R1, copy of job sheet dated 20.7.2015 as Annexure R2 and copy of bill of the products purchased by opposite party no.1 as Annexure R3.     

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.                There is no dispute that the complainant purchased the LED in question from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.28,900/- on 24.4.2015, which fact is also evident from copy of invoice No.11277 dated 24.4.2015 Annexure C1. It is also not in dispute that the LED was carrying warranty of one year. The complainant has claimed that he has used the LED in question for only two/three months after which the same started creating loud noise at the time of starting and there was also noise in the speakers. The mechanic of the opposite party no.1 checked the LED and made temporarily adjustments. It is further the case of the complainant that thereafter some dots and lining started coming on the screen of the LED. The authorized service mechanic of opposite party no.2 after checking the LED, stated that LED cannot be repaired due to manufacturing defect. But the opposite parties have failed to replace the LED in question with a new one as per the warranty of the same despite several requests of the complainant. The opposite parties have come up with a plea that after receipt of complaint on 20.7.2015 from the complainant, the engineer of the company visited his house, checked the LED and found that panel of the same is broken and told to the complainant that warranty of the LED is barred due to physical damage and the repair of the same will be on paid basis. In this regard, the opposite parties have placed on file copy of job sheet dated 20.7.2015 as Annexure R2 wherein it is mentioned that panel is broken.

8.                It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of arguments, LED in question was produced before this Forum by the complainant. After seeing the LED by making its switch on in the Forum, we noticed that inner panel of the LED is broken as lining were coming on the upper portion of the screen of the LED whereas outer display of the LED was not broken. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, the inner panel of the LED is so soft that if any hard object is struck on its outer display due to mishandling or carelessness, the inner panel is broken. We also find force in the contention of learned counsel for the opposite parties. It seems that due to some mishandling, some hard object has touched the outer display of the LED, due to which inner panel of the same has been broken. The complainant has not produced anything on file to show that same is due to manufacturing defect. The version of the complainant that service mechanic of op no.2 after checking the LED told that due to manufacturing defect, same is not repairable is not supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant was required to get tested the LED in question from appropriate authority/laboratory but he has failed to do so. Even at the time of arguments when the LED in question was produced before this Forum, he was asked to get tested the LED from appropriate Forum but learned counsel for the complainant stated that no purpose will be served by examining the LED as apparently same is having manufacturing defect. It seems that complainant has intentionally not moved the application for sending the LED in question for test because the panel of the LED in question is broken due to mishandling. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as N.Balraj Vs. Agile Phototechniks (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. II (2016) CPJ 57 (NC)  has held that “Complainant has failed to produce any evidence to the effect that there was any manufacturing defect in the machinery or machinery was second hand. Learned State Commission rightly observed that complainant ought to have sent machinery for analysis or test for proving defect. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that as per Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, State Commission was under obligation to obtain the report from appropriate laboratory. This argument is devoid of force and State Commission could have exercised this discretion only when complainant had moved application for sending machinery for test report from appropriate laboratory about any manufacturing defect or second hand machinery.” The abovesaid authority is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reliance in this regard can also be taken from the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC)  relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, since the panel of the LED in question is broken, so the warranty of the same is barred due to physical damage.

9.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion and in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, we find no merit in the present case and dismiss the same. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum.                                                     Dated:13.06.2016

                                                           

                                                                                                                   Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                                         (Ranbir Singh Panghal)                     (Raghbir Singh)

          Member                                   President                                                                                                     District Consumer Disputes                                                                        Redressal, Forum, Fatehabad.