Complainant : Self
For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr.R.Phadake, (Representative)
Opposite Party no.2 : Ex-parte
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Per :- Mr. J. L. Deshpande, President Place : Bandra
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
::::: JUDGMENT :::::
Facts giving rise to this complaint may be stated, in brief, as follows :
The Opposite party no.1 is Manufacturer of Electronic goods, whereas, the Opposite party no.2 is Dealer of such goods. The Complainant purchased Panasonic LCD 32” T.V. from the Opposite party no.2-Manufactured by the Opposite party no.1 on 27.01.2008 for consideration of Rs.36,000/-. The T.V. started flickering from May, 2009 but the Dealer explained that it was due to power problem. Again there had been problem on 20.07.2009 and this time the Opposite party no.2 informed that Panel of the T.V. will have to be replaced, however, costs of the Panel was quoted Rs.32,000/-. According to the Complainant, defect related to panel of T.V. is manufacturing defect, and this should have been rectified by the Opposite parties without charging any amount towards costs of the panel. According to the Complainant, service centre of the Opposite party no.1 picked the T.V. set on 13.01.2011 and it is with the service centre and they have not returned the same. The Complainant gave notice to the Opposite party no.1 through Representative to which the Opposite party no.1 gave reply by stating that the Complainant will have to pay Rs.15,000/- for replacement of T.V. panel. This was not acceptable to the Complainant.
2 The Complainant then filed present complaint on 13.04.2011 making allegations of unfair trade practice on the Opposite parties seeking directions to replace the panel of the T.V. and remove the defect and pay compensation to the Complainant.
3 The Opposite party no.1 filed written version of defence and took stand that T.V. set was purchased by the Complainant on 27.01.2008 and complaint was received on 13.07.2009 i.e. after 17 months and on inspection, it was found that the panel of T.V. Set is defective and the Complainant was given the estimate of Rs.31,918/- as costs of panel. The Complainant, however, insisted to replace the panel without costs, which was not acceptable to the Opposite party no.1 since the T.V. set was not within warranty period. Accordingly, the Opposite party no.1 asked the Complainant to pay Rs.15,000/- on giving discount. This offer was also turned down by the Complainant and he insisted for replacement of panel free of costs. According to Opposite party no.1, it is ready and willing replace the panel of T.V. on payment Rs.15,000/- by the Complainant.
4 The Complainant filed affidavit of evidence as well as copies of bills and correspondence. We have heard the Complainant in person as well as the Representative of the Opposite party no.1.
5 The Opposite party no.2 –Dealer remained ex-parte.
6 We have gone through pleadings, affidavits and documents. Following points arises for our determination.
Nos. | Points | Findings |
1 | Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party ? | No |
2 | Whether the Complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs.20,000/- with compensation and costs of this proceeding Rs.10,000/- ? | No |
3 | What order ? | Complaint dismissed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS :-
7 The Complainant has annexed copy of the bill to the complaint, which shows that the Complainant had purchased T.V.set manufactured by the Opposite party no.1 from the Opposite party no.2 on 27.01.2008. Warranty to the T.V.set was of one year. It is also not the case of the Complainant that the problem arose during the warranty period.
8 The Complainant has annexed copy of job card, dated, 15.07.2009 which shows that T.V. set was getting on / off automatically. There is endorsement on the job card that panel to be replaced. Below that job card there is a copy of estimate which shows that costs of the panel is Rs.31,900/-. According to the Complainant, defect related to panel was manufacturing defect. However, record of the case shows that T.V.set purchased by the Complainant on 27.01.2008 and the problem first time arose on May, 2009. There is no evidence about complaint to the dealer in May, 2009. What we find from the record is that complaint to the service centre was registered on 13.07.2009 and service centre staff visited on 15.07.2009 that time defect to the panel was found. T.V.set was getting on / off automatically. Thus after 17 months of purchase of T.V. set the problem had arisen. Had it been manufacturing defect then certainly problem would have occurred from the beginning itself or within short span from the date of purchased. The fact that problem related to panel was noticed after 17 months from date of purchase shows that during intervening period T.V. set was functioning smoothly. It is possible that due to power failure or any other problem, panel of the T.V. set might have sustained defect. It is not the case of the Complainant that warranty period was in fore or this defect had occurred during warranty period. No such statement appeared in the complaint and no copy of warranty card is produced on the record. Thus the defect was sought to be rectified by the Complainant from the Opposite party no.1 free of costs after the warranty period was over. Naturally, therefore, the Opposite party no.1 was justified in directing to the Complainant to pay towards costs of the panel. Learned representative of the Opposite party no.1 –Mr. Phadake submitted during the course of oral argument that as good will gesture the Opposite party no.1 had offered discount to the Complainant and was prepared to replace the panel on payment of Rs.15,000/- by the Complainant. He made a statement that their offer is still valid but that offer was not acceptable to the Complainant.
9 In view of the above, we find that there was no manufacturing defect in the T.V. set. The Opposite party no.1 was justified in not giving the replacement free of costs. Therefore, we are not inclined to hold the Opposite party no.1 is guilty of deficiency in service.
10 If the Complainant is willing to accept the offer that has been given by the Opposite party no.1, he may sent communication to that effect of the Opposite party no.1 and on payment of Rs.15,000/- may get replacement of panel, as well as custody of the T.V. set. If offer is not acceptable to the Complainant, the Opposite party no.1 shall return T.V. set as it’s to the Complainant.
In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following order.
::::: ORDER :::::
(1) Complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(2) Certified copies of this order to be furnished to both the parties, free of costs, as per rules.
