Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/527/2018

Prem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic Brand Shop, IDEAL ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

Virender Kumar Adv.

13 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	527 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	20.09.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	13.05.2019

 

 

 

 

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

 

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Panasonic Brand Shop, IDEAL ELECTRONICS, SCO 3, Sector 11, Panchkula 134109 authorised dealer through its Manager.

 

2]  Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., having registered 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 No.108, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh 160047, authorised Service Centre through its Manager. 

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

         SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

 

Argued By:       Sh.Virender Kumar, Adv. for complainant

Sh.Vikas Gupta, Adv. for OPs No.2 & 3.

Opposite Party No.1 exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant, as set out in the compliant, is that, he purchased a Panasonic 32” LED TV from Opposite Party NO.1 for an amount of Rs.25,500/- vide  Bill dated 11.11.2015 (Ann.C-1) and 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 is stated that the said LED TV gave problem of “No picture Only Sound” within 3 months of its purchase, which was reported to OPs whereupon the Engineer of the Opposite Party No.3 told that there is a manufacturing fault in the LED and repaired the same.  It is also stated that after 3-4 months, the same problem again started in said LED and as such, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to replace the LED, but they did not pay any heed.  It is stated that the LED has a manufacturing problem which started in warranty period and Opposite Parties are duty bound to replace the same.  It is submitted that the LED is not working properly and it was delivered to Opposite Party NO.3 vide job card dated 8.8.2018 (Ann.C-3). 

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 8.2.2019.

        The Opposite Parties NO.2 & 3 have jointly filed reply stating that since the date of purchase i.e. 11.11.2015 till 8.8.2018, the TV in question worked fine and needed attention except once i.e. on 25.2.2016 when after minor adjustment by the Engineer, the issue was resolved up to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and no concern regarding the performance of the TV was ever raised by the complainant till 8.8.2018 i.e. after 2 years 9 months.  It is stated that the 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 25.8.2018 (Ann.C-3). It is also stated that the 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 TV within warranty period as neither any Engineer’s (Expert) Report nor any other convincing material has been filed by the complainant.  It is submitted that the allegation of manufacturing defect is not to be taken to be as gospel truth on mere statement of complainant, but it is required to be proved beyond doubt by means of credible documentary evidence.  Denying all other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

5]       Admittedly, the Panasonic 32” LED TV purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs.25,500/- on 11.11.2015 was carrying two year warranty (1+1) as is clear from Ann.C-1 & C-2.

 

6]       The main grouse of the complainant is that the LED in question is having manufacturing defect and as such, became defective on two occasions within the warranty period.  It is stated that the LED in question is lying with Opposite Party No.3/Service Centre, but they are not replacing it with new one under warranty.

 

7]       The stand of the OPs is that since the date of purchase i.e. 11.11.2015 till 8.8.2018, the TV in question worked fine and need no attention except once i.e. on 25.2.2016 when after minor adjustment by the Engineer, the issue was resolved up to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and no concern regarding the performance of the TV was ever raised by the complainant till 8.8.2018 i.e. after 2 years 9 months.  It is stated that the 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 25.8.2018 (Ann.C-3).  It is also contended that complainant did not place on record any expert opinion to prove alleged manufacturing defect in the LED. 

 

8]       We find force in the contention of ld.Counsel for OPs NO.2 & 3.  The warranty on the LED was available till 10.11.2017. Ann.C-3 established that the LED became defective on 8.8.2018 i.e. after warranty period (Ann.C-3) and therefore, the repair of the LED cannot be entertained under warranty. However, the complainant can get it repaired at his own cost from the Opposite Party NO.3.  In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties. 

 

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.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

13^th May, 2019                                                                        sd/-   

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER