- Dr. Asesh Banerjee,
44R, Gariahat Road,
____Versus____
- Charco Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
158, S.P. Mukherjee Road,
Rashbehari Crossing, Kolkata-26.
- Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.
- Anna Salai, Chennai – 600032and
1, Loudon Street, 3rd Floor,
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 34 Dated 29/03/2016.
The case of the complainant in short is that on 3.8.10 complainant purchased a LCD TV being model no.TH L32C8D manufactured by Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to o.p. no.2) from the Panasonic Brand Shop, 28/8, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-29 for a consideration of Rs.21,332 plus 13.5% Vat. On 23.3.11 the said TV set started malfunctioning. The TV screen showed various line pattern and distorted pictures. On the very next day complainant informed the matter to Panasonic Brand Shop. Then some technicians of Charco Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to o.p. no.1) which is the service centre of Panasonic visited the residence of complainant and inspected the TV set. They opined that the TV set got damaged by some hit. But the TV set neither got any hit nor there was any trace of physical damage. Moreover, it was within the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase. Then complainant again lodged a complaint and as per his complaint o.sp. sent their technicians. This time also the technicians opined the same reasons as earlier. On 12.4.11 o.p. no.1 sent a letter to complainant with an estimated repairing cost of Rs.24,049.99 which is more than the purchase value of the TV set. Then complainant lodged a complaint before Asstt. Director, Consumer Affairs Deptt., Kolkata-27 praying for redressal. After meeting complainant wanted a discount of 75% of the repairing cost of the said TV but o.ps. did not agree with him. They offered 50% discount with which complainant did not agree. Thereafter complainant filed the instant case praying for refund of the purchase value of the TV set or replace the defective TV set of same size and model along with compensation and cost.
O.ps. appeared in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that they have received a call from complainant on 24.3.11 vide job no.pi-asc-1103-029163. Accordingly they have attended the complainant on 2.4.11. Their observation was that the panel of the TV was broken. From their view the panel was broken due to external impact. They had informed it and in due course when complainant asked them about the cost of repair as per service they have informed the cost by writing on 12.4.11. They have also stated in their w/v that o.p. no.2 is the sole authority to take the decision and they sent the guideline about the next course of action. As per tripartite meeting held on 12.9.11 before CA & FBP, Kolkata on 20.9.11 o.p. no.2 communicated through written documents to consumer that they would give 50% discount on the total cost of repairing as a special case. So, the present case is liable to be dismissed against o.p. no.1.
O.p. no.2 denied all the material allegations interalia stated that complainant had used the said TV for a period of over seven months and had alleged defect. If there was any manufacturing defect then the same would have been detected at an earlier stage. The alleged defect, if any, has been occurred due to mishandling of the TV set by complainant and so o.p. no.2 is not in any way liable for the same. O.p. no.2 had also stated that the technicians inspected the TV set and opined that the malfunctioning occurred due to some hit. O.p. no.2 stated that the hit must not always be a physical hit but the same may be occurred due to voltage fluctuation of power supply and for that reasons also o.p. no.2 is not liable. O.p. no.2 also prayed for inspection of the TV set to detect the cause of alleged defect.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that on 3.8.10 complainant purchased a LCD TV being model no.TH L32C8D manufactured by Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to o.p. no.2) from the Panasonic Branch Shop, 28/8, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-29 for a consideration of Rs.21,332 plus 13.5% Vat. On 23.3.11 the said TV set started malfunctioning. Complainant lodged a complaint on 24.3.11. As per his complaint o.ps. sent their technicians and technicians opined that the damage occurred due to external hit. Thereafter, when complainant wanted to know the repairing cost, o.ps. sent estimated repairing cost of Rs.24,049.99 which is more than the cost price of the TV set. It is astonishing that seven months old TV required a repairing charge of Rs.24,049.99 which is more than the cost price of the TV set in question. If the repairing cost would be so o.ps. could offer him a new set at a discounted price. No one would repair any TV by the price which is more than the price of a new TV set. Moreover, o.p. no.2 has also opined that the problem may be for external hit or due to voltage fluctuation. They could offer any reasonable price so that the complainant would not come before this Forum. So we find deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.2 i.e. the manufacturer and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against o.p. no.1 and allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.21,332/- (Rupees twenty one thousand three hundred thirty two) only to the complainant and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigait9on cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
O.p. no.2 is directed to collect the TV set in question from the complainant’s residence within seven days after compliance of the aforesaid order.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
