Delhi

StateCommission

A/37/2017

AFRIN KHATOON - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANASONIC AVC NETWORKS INDIA CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NISHANT PARWER

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                     Date of Arguments: 14.02.2017

                                                             Date of decision    :  16.02.2017

 

First Appeal No. 37/2017

In the matter of:

Afrin Khatoon

W/o Nishat Perwez

R/o B-158, First Floor

Shaheen Bagh, Thoker No. 8

Jamia Nagar,Okhla,

New Delhi-25.                                                                                              …..Appellant

                                                            Versus

  

 

Panasonic AVC Networks India Co. Ltd

C-52, D-Block, Sector-11

Narmada Marg, NOIDA, 201301 (U.P.)

(Formerly known as Matsushita Television  and

Audio India Ltd.                                                                    ……Respondent

  

CORAM

 

SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER      

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   

Judgement?  Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

         

                                                               JUDGEMENT

Shri Anil Srivastava, Member

            Assailing the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum II (South), Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi  in complaint No. 489/2009 titled as “Afrin Khatoon vs. Panasonic Customer Care & Anr”, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the liability of manufacturer of an electronic goods cannot be extended after the expiry of warranty period. Ms. Afrin Khatoon has preferred this appeal praying as under:-

a) Set aside the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Ld. Distt. Forum, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in the matter titled as “Afrin Khatoon vs. Panasonic Customer Care Centre & Ors.(i.e. Panasonic AVC networks India Co. Ltd.) in complaint case No. 489/2009.

b) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon’ble State Commission may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances in favour of appellant and against the respondents in the interest of justice.

2.         Facts of the case are these.

3.         The complainant has purchased  a Coloured Panasonic Television of 21 inches from Swagat Enterprises, Patna for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- which amount was paid in cash vide receipt No. 2 dated 05.04.2002.  On 25^th June 2007 T.V.so purchased became dead.  Complaints were lodged with OP 1 on 26.06.2007.  Repairing was done by the Ops on payment. The case of the complainant is that OP sold/disposed of the items suffering from inherent defect and this act of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice.

4.         The Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that the item in question suffered from inherent defect,  If the defect occurs or noticed due to the use of the product then the manufacturer may not be liable after the warranty period butif there exists manufacturing inherent defect the manufacturer is liable even after the expiry of the warranty period.

 5.        It is an undisputed fact that the TV was purchased in the year 2002 and there is nothing on record to show that the item so purchased had any cause of concern or problem for five years. It is only in the year 2007 that for the first time defect was noticed the complaint of which was made by the complainant before the OP. Electronic items purchased having no defect for five years cannot be treated to have any inherent defect as alleged.  Infact from the conspectus of the case it is apparent that TV so purchased  gave good service to the complainant for five years no defects having been noticed. Electronic items after 5 years are even otherwise found to have outlived. No one can ensure life time warranty

6.     We have given a careful consideration to the matter.  We are of the considered view that when there is no defect found for 5 years there can be no inherent defect.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant failed to give us any ruling of higher court to the effect that item having done good service for the five years can sustain inherent defect.

7.         Having regard to this we find no infirmity in the order impugned before us. Accordingly  the appeal having found devoid of merit is  dismissed.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost and also one copy to District Forum.

            File be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                     (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER(JUDICIAL)