Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam

CC/323/2014

CHINNI RAJYALAKSHMI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.YESMART - Opp.Party(s)

A.V.L.RAO

28 Nov 2014

ORDER

Date of registration         : 07.10.2014

Date of order         : 28.11.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-I,

VISAKHAPATNAM : AP

 

PRESENT:  Smt K.V.R.Maheswari, B.A., B.L., LL.M.,

 Lady Member & FAC President

 

Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao, B.A., LL.M., PGDHR,

Member

 

Friday the 28^th day of November, 2014

 

Consumer Complaint No: 323 /2014

Between:    

 

Smt.Chinni Rajyalakshmi, W/o K.E.Raju, Hindu, aged about 30 years, D.No.5-685, SIG Nagar, Ravindranagar, Visakhapatnam-530040.

                                                                             …   Complainant

And:

 

1. M/s.Yesmart (Ramakrishna Teletronics (P) Ltd.) (Represented by its Manager) D.No.47-10-33/1, Near Fortune Hotel, Diamond Park, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

2. M/s.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., (represented by its CEO), 6^th Floor, Speic Building Annexe, No.88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-32.

                                                                        … Opposite Parties

 

This case is coming for final hearing on 24-11-2014 in the presence of Sri A.V.L.Rao, Advocate for Complainant and Opposite Parties 1 & 2 called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.         

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

 

1. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a Panasonic LED TV Model No.TH-L32-5V-6D on 27.07.2014 with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase for an amount of Rs.28,000/- and the 1^st Opposite Party issued an Invoice bearing No.DVP-4840 dt.27.7.2014 to the Complainant. The Complainant stated that after taking the said TV to her home, it was not working properly and the same was communicated to the 1^st Opposite Party several times, finally on 17.08.2014 the said TV completely failed to work and the same was intimated to 1^st Opposite Party. Then the 1^st Opposite Party deputed their Service Engineer to the Complainant’s house on 17.08.2014 and after examination of the TV, the Service Engineer opened TV set for repair but not able to rectify the defect and advised the Complainant to bring back that LED TV to their Service Centre i.e. workshop. The 1^st Opposite Party also informed the same and on advise of 1^st Opposite Party, the complainant brought the said TV to the workshop by engaging Taxi on 17.08.2014. The Complainant stated that the Service Persons intimated that the Panel Board has completely destroyed and not in working condition and also they demanded Rs.18,000/- to Rs.23,000/- towards repair charges and for replacement of Control Panel board. The 1^st Opposite party did not pay any attention either to take against their Service Persons or to made any effort to rectify the TV which is under a warranty period, thus the Opposite Parties committed deficiency of service. The Complainant issued a Legal Notice on 15.08.2014 to the Opposite Parties and demanding them to immediate replacement of TV set. The same were received by them but there was no response from Opposite Parties. Hence this complaint to direct all the Opposite Parties

2. to hold and declare the Opposite Party guilty of the deficiency in service as per the provisions of the said Act

3. to refund the amount of Rs.28,000/- with 24% interest from the date of purchase of Panasonic LED TV.

4. to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards travelling expenses besides costs of Rs.2,000/-.

5. On the otherhand both the Opposite Parties after receiving the notice from the Forum, there is no representation and called absent and set exparte.

6. At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed her Evidence Affidavit along with documents and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. Heard the Complainant’s counsel who reiterated his version.

7. In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, if so can the Complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for.

8. As per Ex.A3 issued by 1^st Opposite Party on 27.7.2014 is the Invoice, wherein it clearly shows that the Complainant purchased TH-L32V6D Panasonic LED TV for an amount of Rs.28,000/-. Ex.A4 is the Warranty issued by Opposite Parties. On the reverse of Ex.A4 there are terms and conditions in Condition No.3 which clearly mentioned that “warranty takes care of any manufacturing defect or breakdown of the product during warranty period. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “Company”, at 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”. The version of the Complainant is that after purchase of LED TV within a month, it was completely failed to work and the same was communicated to the 1^st Opposite Party but they failed to rectify the problem and more over they demanded Rs.18,223/- to rectify the problem even though the LED TV is under warranty period only. Moreover, there is no response for the legal notice issued by the Complainant and Ex.A2 are the two acknowledgements for Ex.A1.

9. After careful analysation of the facts of the Complainant with related documents, the Forum observes that within warranty period the Panasonic LED TV not working well as there is defect in Control Panel board, even after several requests and demands made by the Complainant, the Opposite Party not come forward to rectify he defect, even though the Opposite Parties agreed to rectify the defects, if the defects are within warranty as per Ex.A4, but failed to do so which clearly shows their deficiency in service. Moreover, there is acknowledgement of Legal Notice issued by the Complainant but the Opposite Parties neither rectified the defects in TV nor refund the amount back to the Complainant which clearly evidenced their negligent attitude. More than that there is no representation even on receipt of notice from the Forum, which clearly shows their negligent manner. Hence both the Opposite Parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.28,000/- with 9% from 27.07.2014 i.e. date of purchase of TV.

10. The 1^st relief prayed by the Complainant is “to hold and declare the Opposite Party guilty of deficiency of service as per the provisions of the Act”. But in our view awarding compensation itself is enough to establish the guilty of Opposite Parties regarding their deficiency in service. There is no doubt that even after invest so much amount to purchase an LED TV for her family’s recreation but as the TV is not workingand the acts of Opposite Parties caused severe mental agony to the Complainant. Because of the acts of the Opposite Party, the Complainant is entitle, the compensation of Rs.2,000/- which would be just and reasonable.

11. The Complainant is also directed to handover the TV, which is in the possessionof the Complainant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Order copy to the Opposite Parties and to obtain acknowledgement. Then the Opposite Parties after receiving the damaged Panasonic LED TV from the complainant, they have to refund the amount of Rs.28,000/- with 9% interest from 27.7.2014 to the Complainant within 30 days from the date when the Opposite Parties received the TV set from the Complainant, failing which to pay the same amount with 12% interest till the date of payment.Accordingly this point is answered.

12. In the result the Complaint is allowed directing both the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.28,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from 27.7.2014 to the Complainant on receipt of LED TV from the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of TV from the Complainant, failing which to pay the same amount with 12% interest p.a. till the date of disposal. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-. The Complainant is also directed to handover the Panasonic LED TV set to the 1^st Opposite Party within 15 days from the date of receipt of Order copy and obtain an acknowledgement from the 1^st Opposite Party.

    Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of November, 2014.

        Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

    Member                                                                President (FAC)

                                                                       District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                 Visakhapatnam

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Ex.A1	15.09.2014	Notice	Office copy
Ex.A2		Postal Receipts  & Acknowledgement cards	Original
Ex.A3	27.07.2014	Invoice	Original
Ex.A4		Warranty card	Original

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:     -NIL-

 

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

  Member                                                                President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                              Visakhapatnam

 

// GLR //