Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/201/2014

R.Thiyagarajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Vasanth & Co - Opp.Party(s)

Elvina E Daniel

14 Aug 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 20.04.2014

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 14.08.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.201/2014

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

                                 

Mr. R. Thiyagarajan,

S/o. N. Adimoolam,

Plot No.II, Thirpoora Sundari Avenue,

Madananthapuram,

Chennai – 600 125.                                                        .. Complainant. 

                                                                                            ..Versus..

 

1. M/s. VASANTH & CO.,

Represented by its Manager,

Old No.11, New No.07, Arcot Road,

Alapakkam,

Porur,

Chennai – 600 116.

 

2. M/s. VASANTH & CO. (ADMIN OFFICE),

Represented by its Manager,

No.14, Kaveri Nagar,

Near Aranganathan Subway,

Railway border First Street,

Saidapet,

Chennai – 600 015.

 

3. M/s. PANASONIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,

Represented by its Manager,

No.88, 6^th Floor, “Spic Building Annexe”,

Mount Road,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

4. M/s. ROBOTECHS ELECTRONICS,

Represented by its Manager, 

Panasonic Authorised Service Centre,

Plot No.153-F, Kamaraj Salai,

Ramakrishna Nagar,

Valasarawalkam,

Chennai – 600 087.                                    ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. Elvina E Daniel

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. B. Priyatharsini

Counsel for the opposite parties 3 & 4 : M/s. K. Jayaraman & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 4 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund a sum of Rs.66,500/- the amount paid for the LED TV, to  pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- being the current price of a new LED TV of another brand with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of  payment till realization and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he and his wife purchased a colour LED Television set of Panasonic LED from the 1^st opposite party on 02.11.2013 during the Diwali holidays for a sum of Rs.66,500/-.  The complainant submits that evenafter the payment of the entire amount towards the price of the television, the opposite party delivered the television set only after 3 days i.e. on 05.11.2013 and was installed on the same day.  The complainant submits that on 10^th day of installation i.e. on 16.11.2013, the LED Television was completely blocked and did not function.  Immediately, the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party who redirect the complainant to meet the 3^rd opposite party.   The complainant gave a complaint to the 3^rd opposite party also.  Since there is no proper response, the complainant contacted the Area Manager of the 2^nd opposite party.  A representative of the 4^th opposite party came to the complainant’s house only on 06.12.2013 after a lapse of one month and removed the component in the LED TV for replacement.  During the course of time of replacement, the 4^th opposite party gave an old Panasonic LED TV for use.  But there was none of the defects of any kind in the said TV forced to make an e-mail complaint to the 3^rd opposite party on 19.12.2013.  Hence, the complainant issued notice dated:06.01.2014 to all the opposite parties for which, the 3^rd opposite party sent a reply dated:18.01.2014 admitting the default in the panel board.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the LED TV was purchased from the show room of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that at the time of purchase, the opposite parties 1 & 2 clearly instructed the complainant for any manufacturing defect, the complainant should directly contact the manufacturer or their Authorized Service Centre.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the LED TV was sold to the complainant with the same condition. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are not liable for any manufacturing defects.   Hence, the complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 2 is liable to be dismissed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 3 & 4 is as follows:

The opposite parties 3 & 4 specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 3 & 4 state that on 02.11.2013, the complainant purchased a LED TV for a sum of Rs.66,500/-.  As per the policy of the company, on receipt of call after sale of a product a technician will be deputed to the place of the customer to check the product and verify its condition and install the same. In this case also on 04.11.2013, the complainant call was registered vide Job No.PI-ASC-1311-028499 for installation. On 08.11.2013, a complaint received from the complainant was also registered vide Job No.PI-ASC-1311-056857. On 16.11.2013, a complaint was received from the complainant and the same was registered vide job No.PI-ASC-1311-100094.   The opposite party’s technician verified and checked the TV condition and found some problem in the panel board and the same was informed to the complainant.  Since the TV is under warranty, the opposite party is ready to replace the panel board with free of cost.  The opposite parties 3 & 4 state that on 06.12.2013, the opposite parties 3 & 4 given a standby TV valuing of Rs.49,500/-.  While so, the opposite parties 3 & 4 received the approval from the Head Office for replacement cost of the Rs.66,000/- of the TV and the same was intimated to the complainant through phone.  But the complainant has not returned the standby unit and ID proof and cancelled the cheque for refund the cash. For the legal notice of the complainant dated:06.01.2014, for which, suitable reply dated:18.01.2014 was sent.  The opposite parties 3 & 4 state that on 23.04.2014, the opposite parties 3 & 4 sent a legal notice to the complainant for return of the standby unit. But the said notice was returned as ‘Door Closed’. The returned copy of cover is marked as Ex.B6.  Till date, the standby unit is with the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 3 & 4.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the sum of Rs.66,500/- the price of the LED TV with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the Counsels for the complainant and opposite parties 3 & 4 also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he and his wife purchased a colour LED Television set of Panasonic LED from the 1^st opposite party on 02.11.2013 during the Diwali holidays for a sum of Rs.66,500/-.  Ex.A1 is the copy of bill.  Further the contention of the complainant is that evenafter the payment of the entire amount towards the price of the television, the opposite party delivered the television set only after 3 days i.e. on 05.11.2013 and was installed on the same day.  The reason for the delay was also not explained by the opposite party resulting the hardship to watch the television.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 10^th day of installation i.e. on 16.11.2013, the LED Television was completely blocked and did not function.  Immediately, the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party who redirect the complainant to meet the 3^rd opposite party.   The complainant gave a complaint to the 3^rd opposite party also.  Since there is no proper response, the complainant contacted the Area Manager of the 2^nd opposite party.  A representative of the 4^th opposite party came to the complainant’s house only on 06.12.2013 after a lapse of one month and removed the component in the LED TV for replacement.  Ex.A2 is the copy of replacement certificate.  During the course of time of replacement, the 4^th opposite party gave an old Panasonic LED TV for use.  But there was none of the defects of any kind in the said TV forced to make an e-mail complaint to the 3^rd opposite party on 19.12.2013.  Ex.A3 is the copy of email correspondences.  But till date, the complainant has not received the new LED TV caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complainant issued notice dated:06.01.2014 to all the opposite parties as per Ex.A4 for which, the 3^rd opposite party sent a reply dated:18.01.2014 as per Ex.A5 admitting the default in the panel board proves the manufacturing defect and deficiency in service. 

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that at the time of purchase, the opposite parties 1 & 2 clearly instructed the complainant for any manufacturing defect, the complainant should directly contact the manufacturer or their Authorized Service Centre.  But the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not filed any document to prove such contention.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the LED TV was sold to the complainant with the same condition.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are not liable for any manufacturing defects.   But admittedly, the LED TV was purchased from the show room of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 3 & 4 would contend that on 02.11.2013, the complainant purchased a LED TV  for a sum of Rs.66,500/-. As per the policy of the company, on receipt of call after sale of a product a technician will be deputed to the place of the customer to check the product and verify its condition and install the same. In this case also on 04.11.2013, the complainant call was registered vide Job No.PI-ASC-1311-028499 for installation. On 08.11.2013, a complaint received from the complainant was also registered vide Job No.PI-ASC-1311-056857.  But no document produced.   On 16.11.2013, a complaint was received from the complainant and the same was registered vide job No.PI-ASC-1311-100094 as per Ex.B1.   The opposite party’s technician verified and checked the TV condition and found some problem in the panel board and the same was informed to the complainant.  Since the TV is under warranty, the opposite party is ready to replace the panel board with free of cost.  Ex.A10 is the copy of Warranty card.  But the complainant claimed replacement of the LED TV which could not be permissible as per the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Warranty in clause No.3  & 5 which reads as follows:

“3. Warranty takes care of any manufacturing defect or breakdown of the product during warranty period.  Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., herein referred to as “Company”, as its sole discretion will repair or replace such parts and defective parts could become the property of the Company.  Repair under warranty may also be carried out by any Authorised Service Center of the Company.

5. In the event the company carries out repairs or replacement of any part during the said warranty period, the warranty shall thereafter continue only for the remaining period of the warranty”.

But it is very clear that replacement also permitted. 

8.     Further the contention of the opposite parties 3 & 4 is that on 06.12.2013, the opposite parties 3 & 4 given a standby TV as per Ex.B2 valuing of Rs.49,500/-.  While so, the opposite parties 3 & 4 received the approval from the Head Office for replacement cost of the Rs.66,000/- of the TV and the same was intimated to the complainant through phone.  But the complainant has not returned the standby unit and ID proof and cancelled the cheque for refund the cash. On the other hand, for the legal notice of the complainant dated:06.01.2014, Ex.B3 for which, suitable reply dated:18.01.2014 as per Ex.B4 was sent.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 3 & 4 is that on 23.04.2014, the opposite parties 3 & 4 sent a legal notice to the complainant as per Ex.B5 for return of the standby unit. But the said notice was returned as ‘Door Closed’. The returned copy of cover is marked as Ex.B6.  Till date, the standby unit is with the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 3 & 4.  But till date, the opposite parties has not produced any document for due sanction for payment of Rs.66,500/- the price of the TV.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally shall pay a sum of Rs.66,500/- being the cost price of the Panasonic LED TV on return of the standby TV with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.66,500/- (Rupees Sixty six thousand and five hundred only) being the cost price of the Panasonic LED TV on return of the standby TV 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 above  amounts shall be payable  within 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 14^th day of August 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	02.11.2013	Copy of bill for Rs.66,500/-
Ex.A2	06.12.2013	Copy of Replacement Certificate from the 4th opposite party
Ex.A3		Copy of email correspondences
Ex.A4	06.01.2014	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A5	18.01.2014	Copy of reply notice from the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A6	27.01.2014	Copy of reply notice from the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A7	22.01.2014	Copy of rejoinder notice
Ex.A8		Copy of Certificate of Warranty
Ex.A9		Copy of Internet Advertisement
Ex.A10		Copy of Warranty Card with Service Coupon attached
Ex.A11		Copy of Telephone bills
Ex.A12		Copy of Credit Card bill

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

OPPOSITE PARTIES 3 & 4 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1	16.11.2013	Copy of Job No.PI-ASC-1311-100094
Ex.B2	06.12.2013	Copy of letter to the complainant for the standby TV
Ex.B3	06.01.2014	Copy of legal notice from the complainant
Ex.B4	18.01.2014	Copy of reply notice to the complainant
Ex.B5	23.04.2014	Copy of legal notice to the complainant for Standby TV
Ex.B6		Copy of returned cover

 

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                               PRESIDENT