Order-10.

Date-04/03/2016.

Complainant Shivaji Gangulyby filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one 50 inches 3D Plasma Panasonic TV from the op no.2 on 18.10.2012 bearing model No. TH-P50X50D on payment of Rs.59,500/- vide invoice no. EXE/01104/2012-13 and the said TV was under three years warranty and the TV was installed by the op no.1 at the residence of the complainant and said TV was running well since installation, but all on a sudden since 10.05.2015 the said TV started giving various problems for which complainant lodged complaints to the customer care of the op no.1 for about 3 – 4 times by email but no fruitful result came from those complaints from the end of the op no.1.  So, complainant sent email to op no.1 on 12.10.2015.

          As soon as after lodging complaint to op no.1, op no.1 sent their mechanic for 4-5 times at residence of the complainant and after inspecting the said TV, the mechanic took some photographs of the said TV and during inspection, complainant on enquiry from the TV mechanic came to know that there is a defect on the panel of the TV and further complainant was further informed by the mechanic that manufacturing of the said model has been stopped by the op no.1 and the parts are not available in the market.

          Complainant contacted with the head office of the op no.1 and head office of op no.1 assured the complainant that op no.1 shall replace the TV with a new one as the existing TV of the complainant is well within the warranty period.  During communication between complainant and op no.1 one Kaushik Sarkar (Area Service Manager of Panasonic India) contacted with complainant over telephone and assured to solve the problem abruptly and the same was confirmed by way of an e-mail stating that they shall replace the defective TV with a new LED TV of the same cost. The Model no. TH50C300DX as its MRP Rs. 79,900/- and complainant will return the defective TV to the op no.1 along with Rs. 28,600/- then op shall provide a fresh warranty of six months for the replaced one.

          Complainant in order to avoid complications and hazards was ready to avail of the offer of the op no.1 but on receipt of the mail from Kaushik Sarkar complainant verified the price of the TV model No. TH50C300DX in the market and came to know that the market price of the same TV is Rs. 49,990/- with an offer of three years warranty and the same TV model has been openly offered in the T2 Telegraph newspaper, page no.17, advertised by a renowned electronic store of Kolkata, namely Great Eastern Store with other added benefits such as a Samsung Smart phone and gifts.  Thereafter on several occasion the same offer was published in the T2 newspapers.

          Thereafter complainant contacted with Kaushik Sarkar and told him about the offer of Great Eastern Store that the said store is offering of Rs. 8,600/- less than the op no.1 has offered and in this context it is necessary to mention that despite the fact that the op no.1 is asking for the money much more than the market price and the complainant was willing to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the op no.1 with a request that as the complainant is paying a lump sum amount, so complainant should avail of the present offer of three years warranty.

          When op came to know the request of the complainant op no.1 finally sent an e-mail and expressed their inability on 30.10.2015 and since expressing their inability till date op no.1 is neither replacing the defective set with a new one nor showing any intention to refund the sum of Rs. 59,500/- and complainant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such unfairness in trade practiced by the op no.1 and finding no other option complainant appeared before this Forum for redressal and prayed for directing the op to replace a new TV set or refund the entire amount and compensation.

          On the other hand op Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant purchased the said TV and it was delivered upon the complainant in due time by op no.2.  But complainant informed that the op by an electronic mail dated 12.10.2015 that there was some alleged problems in the said TV which needs to be resolved and thereafter Service Engineer forthwith visited the complainant’s residence and inspected the said TV and after inspectionService Engineer found that the TV panel was not working and also informed the complainant that the Plasma TV is no more in production and spare parts are not available and so complainant was informed that the necessary steps are being taken and by electronic mail dated 17.10.2015 ops are ready to replace the said Plasma TV with a new LED TV having model No. TH50C300DX valued at Rs. 79,900/- on payment of the differential amount of Rs. 28,600/- and the total discount was of Rs. 51,240/- and the complainant was further informed that there will be an extended warranty of six months.

          Complainant initially agreed with such terms and asked the answering op to replace the said TV with offer one.  But the answering op was in process of such replacement, when the complainant informed the answering op that he has come across two newspaper advertisement dated 17.10.2015 and 31.10.2015 and was under impression that the MRP of the TV was Rs. 49,990/- and the answering op is trying to mislead the complainant by charging extra against such replacement.  When answering op stated that from the bare perusal of the said advertisements it is understandable that the said price were offer price particularly given by Great Eastern Trading (P) Ltd. on the occasion of Durga Puja and from the advertisement dated 31.10.2015 it is evident that the MRP is Rs. 79,990/- and offer price is Rs. 49,990/-.

          Further op stated and submitted that the dealers of consumer durable goods give special offers during occasions like Durga Puja, Diwali, Christmas etc. and the company has nothing to do with such offer and it is at the discretion of such dealers that what discount they will be offering and the dealers that what discount they will be offered.  The dealers have principal to principal terms with the company and once the mark the price of a product keeping the cost price unaffected and as per the company’s policy, the answering op cannot quote a price having a wide gap with the MRP.

          Further op out of its offer complainant replaced the old TV with an upgraded TV provided the complainant is ready to pay the differential amount and thereby the answering op stated that by their electronic mail dated 30.10.2015 their inability to provide with the complainant’s request of (1+2) three years warranty and instead offered for an additional six months warranty with the present product warranty.

          But op has submitted in details that op may be permitted to replace the old TV having Model No.TH50C300DX together with extended warranty period and for pass such necessary order.

Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the complaint and written version and also considering the fact, it is found that op is willing to replace the TV after deducting some amount as depreciation cost of the TV and that offer was made.  But anyhow complainant found some advertisement of Great Easter Trading Company about sell of such type of TV in less amount when the dispute arose.  But op has specifically mentioned that complainant purchased the TV Model No. TH50C300DX at a cost of Rs. 51,964/- from electronixity on 18.10.2012 and it is admitted by the complainant that the said TV gave good service and ultimately on 10.05.2015 the problem started and no doubt warranty was for three years.

          So, as per purchase receipt it was purchased on 18.10.2012.  So, date of expiry of warranty would be 17.10.2015.  But problem started on 10.05.2015 that is just five months before the expiry of warranty.  So, invariably under any circumstances, complainant cannot get refund of the entire amount in view of the fact that complainant already used the said TV for two years and seven months continuously without any problem. 

          Considering the amount which was paid as price of the said TV, it is found that complainant actually paid Rs. 51,964/- that is rounded up Rs. 52,000/- and out of that complainant already enjoyed 31 months without any interruption out of total 36 months of warranty.  So, depreciation in respect of the TV would be about 50 percent and that depreciation would about of Rs. 25,000/-.  When that is the fact, then invariably if complainant wants to get back the money in that case complainant shall get back only Rs.27,000/- and if complainant accepts the offer of the op, in that case complainant shall have to pay Rs. 12,000/- for replacing of higher quality of TV as offered by the op and when op is willing to hand over such TV in that case invariably complainant shall have to pay Rs. 12,000/- extra.

          But we have gathered that op has submitted in his written version that the TV with Model No. TH50C300DX together with of extended warranty may be replaced, then we have nothing to do but to direct the op to replace the same by a new one LED TV of Model No. TH50C300DX together with extended warranty of at least another one year and if complainant wants three years warranty, in that case complainant shall have to deposit extra amount of Rs. 12,000/-.

          Accordingly as per admission of the op, we are allowing this complaint on admission of the op and also considering the material and the nature of defect as detected at the fag end of warranty and use the TV without any interruption of 31 months out total 36 months of warranty.

          In the result, this complaint succeeds on admission.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on admission of the op without any cost.

          Op is hereby directed to hand over a new LED TV bearing Model No. TH50C300DX together with one year extended warranty after getting back the defective TV set which is in the custody of the complainant and complainant shall have to hand over the same on proper receipt to the op Panasonic India Ltd. and shall have to receive a new LED TV having Model No. TH50C300DX together with one year extended warranty within one month from the date of this order.

          If complainant wants to get three years warranty in respect of the new set which would be supplied by the op, in that case complainant shall have to pay Rs. 12,000/- to the op Panasonic India Ltd. and in this regard and if it is not paid by the complainant, in that case op shall have to hand over the above mentioned model of TV as already mentioned together with one year extended warranty.

          Both the parties are directed to comply the order and if any party fails to comply this order, in that case penal action shall be started against him for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.