Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/258/2019

Prem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic Brand Shop, Ideal Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Appeal No	:	A/258/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	29/10/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	22/04/2022

 

 

 

 

 

Prem Singh son of Sh.Shiv Dhan, Resident of House No.524, Beer Gagar, Panchkula (Haryana).

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

1.   Panasonic Brand Shop, Ideal Electronics, SCO 3, Sector 11, Panchkula – 134109 Authorized Dealer.

 

2.   Panasonic India Pvt. Limited, having Regd. Office 6^th Floor, “SPIC BUILDING” Annexe No.88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India – 600032, through its Managing Director.

 

3.   New Tec Electronics, SCO 108, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh – 160047, authorized Service Centre.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY            MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Respondent No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 17.12.2019.
		Sh. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.05.2019, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (now, District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh), vide which, it disposed of the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/527/2018, in the following terms:-

“9.  In view of above, the Complaint stands disposed of with directions to Opposite Parties to repair the LED TV of the Complainant on payment basis and after repair, the LED would carry warranty of 6 months from the date of such repair. There is no order as to cost and compensation.”

 

2.      Before the District Commission-II, it was the case of the Appellant/Complainant that he purchased a Panasonic 32 inch LED TV from Respondent No.1/ Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs.25,500/- vide Bill dated 11.11.2015 (Annexure C-1). The said LED TV was carrying warranty of one plus one i.e. two years from the date of sale i.e. till 10.11.2017. It has been alleged, the LED TV in question gave problem of "No picture Only Sound" within three months of its purchase, which was reported to Respondents/OPs, whereupon the Engineer of the Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 told that there was a manufacturing fault in the LED and repaired the same. However, after 3-4 months, the same problem again started in said LED and as such, the Appellant/ Complainant requested the Respondents/ Opposite Parties to replace the LED, but they did not pay any heed. It has been averred, the LED was not working properly and it was delivered to Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 vide job card dated 8.8.2018 (Annexure C-3). Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Commission-II, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/OPs.

 

3.      In the reply filed before the District Commission-II, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Respondents/ Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 pleaded that since the date of purchase i.e. 11.11.2015 till 8.8.2018, the LED TV in question worked fine and needed attention except once i.e. on 25.02.2016 when after minor adjustment by the Engineer, the issue was resolved up to the complete satisfaction of the Appellant/Complainant and no concern regarding the performance of the LED TV was ever raised by the Appellant/ Complainant till 08.08.2018 i.e. after 2 years 9 months. It was submitted that the LED TV in question was not in the warranty period when the Panel of the same came out to be defective after inspection by the Engineer on 25.08.2018 (Annexure C-3). It was also submitted that the Appellant/complainant has miserably failed to establish his complaint that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of manufacturing defect has persisted in the LED TV within warranty period as neither any Engineer's (Expert) Report nor any other convincing material has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Respondents No.2 & 3/ OPs No.2 & 3 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

4.      However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 08.02.2019.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh disposed of the Complaint of the Appellant/ Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.    

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Complainant.

 

7.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides.

 

8.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

9.      On going through the records, we find that the Ld. District Commission had held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. The warranty of the LED was available till 10.11.2017. Annexure C-3 shows, the LED became defective on 08.08.2018 i.e. after warranty period and therefore, the repair of the LED cannot be entertained under warranty. However, the LED was got repaired by the Appellant/Complainant at his own cost from the Respondent No.3. On these precincts, it was rightly observed by the Ld. District Commission that no deficiency in service is made out against the Respondents/Opposite Parties. The Ld. District Commission, therefore, aptly ordered that the Respondent/ Opposite Parties to repair the LED T.V. of the Appellant/ Complainant on payment basis and after repair, the LED would carry warranty of six months from the date of such repair. In our opinion, the Appellant has been adequately compensated and nothing more is due.

 

10.      Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the adjudication on the merits of the case has taken place since there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties. In nutshell, the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh had dealt with all the above said deficiencies threadbare and dismissed the Complaint, which we feel does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

 

11.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed.

 

12.      Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, pending application filed i.e. M.A.831/2019 shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

 

13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

14.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

22^nd April, 2022                                    

Sd/-

                                  (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER