BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 23/01/2015

Date of Order : 31/07/2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 60/2015

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

1. The complainant Sri. T.J. Gopinath purchased a Panasonic 47” full HD active 3D LED T.V. from the 2^nd opposite party QRS Retail Ltd. on 05-11-2013 at a price of Rs. 76,000/-. The 1^st opposite party manufacturer Panasonic India offered 3 years warranty for the above said TV from the date of purchase. On 19-10-2014, when the complainant connected the wi-fi of the T.V. to the internet, it asked for a software update and the complainant pressed 'yes' and after some time the down load stopped and the T.V. was restarted and the T.V. refused to turn on after that. On the very next day ie. on 20-10-2014, the complainant made a complaint to the company and on 21-10-2014 a technician came and inspected the T.V. and stated that the board will have to be replaced. After one month, the complainant contacted Panasonic India through e-mail. However, the technicians of the 1^st opposite party replaced the board after 2 months. But the problems of the T.V. persisted and the T.V. set was getting reset and get stuck every 10 seconds. Since the T.V. became defective, the complainant and his family members could not watch the T.V. programmes. The complainant's request for a standby T.V. even of a smaller size also not entertained by the 1^st opposite party manufacturer company. In the above circumstances, the complainant filed this complaint seeking direction to the 1^st opposite party to replace the defective T.V. with a brand new T.V. set and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the hardships caused to the complainant and his family and for the payment of rent for display unit in connection with his professional work. The complainant also sought direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards expenses incurred for contesting the case.

2. Notices were issued to both the opposite parties namely Panasonic India and QRS Retail Ltd. were served on them. But nobody appeared before this Forum to resist the complaint filed by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was heard and this complaint is disposed off ex-parte.

3. The evidence in this case consisted of documentary evidences furnished by the complainant marked as Exts. A1 to A3 and no oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. The opposite parties have not appeared, they have neither adduced oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence.

4. The issues to be decided in this case are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replacement of the defective TV with a brand new T.V. set?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant?

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Issue No. i. :- The complainant Sri. T.G. Gopinath had purchased a Panasonic 47” Full HD active 3D LED T.V. from the 2^nd opposite party dealer QRS Retail Ltd. for Rs. 76,000/- as evidenced by Ext. A1 retail invoice No. 54-648103 dated 05-11-2013. The above invoice showed that the T.V. set purchased has 3 years warranty from the date of purchase of the same. The T.V. set became defective on 19-10-2014 and the complainant made the 1^st complaint to the customer care of the 1^st opposite party Panasonic India. The complaint was made during the warranty period. The mother board of the T.V. set was replaced after 3 months from the date of making the 1^st complaint. The complainant contended that even after replacing the board, the problems persisted and the T.V. set was getting reset or was getting stuck every 10 seconds. The above defect was not cured by the 1^st opposite party even though they had sent e-mails frequently promising to make good the T.V. set. Ext. A2 shows the details of e-mails sent to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party on 20-10-2014, 27-12-2014 and on 29-12-2014 and Ext. A3 series relate to e-mail communications made by the 1^st opposite party on more than 20 occasions. The e-mails are issued during the period from 13-11-2014 to 16-01-2015. In these e-mails, the 1^st opposite party promised to contact the complainant and the service team of the 1^st opposite party are co-ordinating to resolve the issue and in e-mail dated 20-12-2014, the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that they have received confirmation from their service team that “part changed, but still same issue is coming in your T.V.” From the above facts, it is evident that the 1^st opposite party had imparted very deficient service to the complainant even during the warranty period. The 1^st opposite party had not taken any efforts to replace the defective T.V. set supplied to the complainant in spite of the fact that the T.V. set supplied to the complainant was defective. We find that the complainant has proved beyond doubt that the T.V. set supplied to him was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects and that the complainant is entitled for replacement of the defective T.V. with a brand new T.V. set.

6. Issue No. ii. :- The complainant had purchased the LED T.V. set on 05-11-2013 and the 1^st complaint about the T.V. set was made on 20-10-2014, and thereafter, the facility of the T.V. set could not be availed by the complainant or by his family members. Thus, we find that the T.V. worked properly only for a period of eleven months and that the 1^st opposite party had not given proper service as promised in the warranty card that too within the warranty period. The act of the 1^st opposite party amounted to gross deficiency in service and this caused severe mental agony to the complainant and his family and the 1^st opposite party is also responsible for the inconveniences caused to the complainant in his professional work. The complainant who is a graduate in sound engineering from Pune Film Institute, had to hire a display @ Rs. 1,500/- per day for the reasons stated above, we find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and inconveniences suffered. We allow the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- claimed by the complainant.

7. Issue No. iii. :- The warranty period of the T.V. set purchased by the complainant extended upto 04-11-2016. Owing to the inaction on the part of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant was unnecessarily dragged to this Forum to redress his grievances. Had the 1^st opposite party taken appropriate and necessary steps to replace the T.V. set in view of its recurring manufacturing defects, filing of this complaint could have been avoided. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings, which we fix at Rs. 2,500/-.

8. In the result, we partly allow this complaint and direct as follows :-

1. The 1^st opposite party shall replace the defective T.V. set with a brand new T.V. of the same price or with an advanced version of the T.V. set and the price difference, if any, shall be paid by the complainant.

2. The 1^st opposite party shall also pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and other inconveniences suffered.

3. The 1^st opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs of the proceedings.

The orders shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the due date till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of July 2015.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil