BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 670 of 2017
Date of Institution: 22.09.2017
Date of Decision: 07.02.2018
Davinder Kaur wife of Sh.Harpal Singh, resident of H.No.53/1, B Block, Friends Avenue, Ajnala Road, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- Panasonic India Private Limited, 6th Floor, SPIC Building, Annexe No.88, Mount Road Guindy, Chennai-600032 Tamil Nadu through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principal Officer.
- Bholi Bros, SCO 107, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Proprieotr/ Partner/ Principal Officer.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Inderjit Lakhra, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties: Sh.Mamandeep Sodhi, ASM on behalf of both the Opposite Parties.
Coram
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member.
Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased one LED TV being marketed by Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No. 2 vide invoice No.T40252 dated 11.7.2015 for Rs.42000/- and hence the complainant is consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. That said newly supplied LED TV set become non functional and its display become faulty and the volume is not properly working and it gives crackling sound within fortnight of its installation by Opposite Party No. 2 within warranty period and the complaint to the effect was made to Opposite Party No. 2 and on toll free number of Opposite Party No.1 who acknowledged the complaints of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that the complainant is making futile visits to Opposite Party No. 2 from the last two years and every time they send their mechanic but to no avail and now their mechanic showed their helplessness and went away on the lame excuse that the senior engineers from Opposite Party No.1 will visit soon and rectify the faults. The Opposite Parties after receiving so many complaints did not bother to attend the complaints of the complainant and make the said LED TV functional till the filing of the present complaint and the complainant has to suffer a lot due to non functioning of the display of the said TV whereas the said TV of the Opposite Parties is under the warranty cover of three years. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in not repairing the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant after charging the amount is an act of deficiency in services, mal practices, Unfair Trade Practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant for which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties be directed to set right the LED TV of the complainant to his satisfaction or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs.42,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization or in the alternative replace with new LED TV of similar make and model.
b) Opposite Parties be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
c) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay the adequate cost of the litigation.
d) Any other consequential relief to which the complainant is entitled to under the law, equity, justice and fairplay be also awarded.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement that the unit was purchased by the complainant on 15.11.2014 and the complaint was received from the complainant on 16.5.2015 that the said unit was non functional and hence, the said unit was inspected on 16.5.2015 and it was found that the penal of the unit was not functioning properly. It was further submitted that as the new panel was not available, the complainant was offered a new unit to which the complainant agreed and hence a new unit was given to the complainant on 11.7.2015. It is as such incorrect and denied that the complainant had purchased the unit on 11.7.2015 as alleged. Further no complaint was received from the complainant that the unit was not functional. It is denied that any complaint was made by the complainant to the Opposite Parties in this regard. When no complaint was received, no occasion had arisen for the Opposite Parties to attend to the said alleged complaints. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In her bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill Ex.C2 and closed her evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Mamandeep Sodhi Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and representative appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. The complainant has submitted her affidavit Ex.C1 in which she has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that the complainant purchased one LED TV being marketed by Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No. 2 vide invoice No.T40252 dated 11.7.2015 for Rs.42000/-, copy of the bill accounts for Ex.C2 and hence the complainant is consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. That said newly supplied LED TV set become non functional and its display become faulty and the volume is not properly working and it gives crackling sound within fortnight of its installation by Opposite Party No. 2 within warranty period and the complaint to the effect was made to Opposite Party No. 2 and on toll free number of Opposite Party No.1 who acknowledged the complaints of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that the complainant is making futile visits to Opposite Party No. 2 from the last two years and every time they send their mechanic but to no avail and now their mechanic showed their helplessness and went away on the lame excuse that the senior engineers from Opposite Party No.1 will visit soon and rectify the faults. The Opposite Parties after receiving so many complaints did not bother to attend the complaints of the complainant and make the said LED TV functional till the filing of the present complaint and the complainant has to suffer a lot due to non functioning of the display of the said TV whereas the said TV of the Opposite Parties is under the warranty cover of three years. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in not repairing the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant after charging the amount is an act of deficiency in services, mal practices, Unfair Trade Practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant for which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and hence the deficiency is alleged on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. On the other hand, the representative appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the unit was purchased by the complainant on 15.11.2014 and the complaint was received from the complainant on 16.5.2015 that the said unit was non functional and hence, the said unit was inspected on 16.5.2015 and it was found that the penal of the unit was not functioning properly. It was further submitted that as the new panel was not available, the complainant was offered a new unit to which the complainant agreed and hence a new unit was given to the complainant on 11.7.2015. It is as such incorrect and denied that the complainant had purchased the unit on 11.7.2015 as alleged. Further no complaint was received from the complainant that the unit was not functional. It is denied that any complaint was made by the complainant to the Opposite Parties in this regard. When no complaint was received, no occasion had arisen for the Opposite Parties to attend to the said alleged complaints and hence it is prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. The main contention of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one LED TV being marketed by Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No. 2 vide invoice No.T40252 dated 11.7.2015 for Rs.42000/-, copy of the bill accounts for Ex.C2 and said newly supplied LED TV set become non functional and its display become faulty and the volume is not properly working and it gives crackling sound within fortnight of its installation by Opposite Party No. 2 within warranty period and the complaint to the effect was made to Opposite Party No. 2 and on toll free number of Opposite Party No.1 who acknowledged the complaints of the complainant. But on the other hand, the representative appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties has specifically stated and deposed through his affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 that unit in question was purchased by the complainant on 15.11.2014 and the complaint was received from the complainant on 16.5.2015 that the said unit was non functional and hence, the said unit was inspected on 16.5.2015 and it was found that the penal of the unit was not functioning properly, and its panel was not available, so the LED set in question could not be repaired, whereas perusal of the bill Ex.C2 placed on record by the complainant shows that the LED set in question was purchased by the complainant vide bill No.T40252 dated 11.7.1015 from Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Bholi Bros, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar and hence there is no question of purchasing the same by the complainant from Opposite Party No. 2 on 15.11.2014 and in this way, by filing a false and frivolous and vexatious affidavit, the representative of Opposite Parties has tried to mislead this Forum and tried to disown its liability to repair the LED set of the complainant within warranty period and not only this much, the affidavit produced by the Opposite Parties before this Forum as Ex.OP1,2/1 is undated and said Mamandeep Sodhi did not dare to mention the date on this affidavit which was produced by him on the file and due to this great negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant is suffering a lot in the hands of Opposite Parties from the last more than two years and the Opposite Parties are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and hence, we found that there is great negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are bound to make good the loss suffered by the complainant in the hands of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, for filing the false, frivolous and vexatious and undated affidavit Ex.OP1,2/2 on the file by Sh.Mamandeep Sodhi, he is liable to be punished separately.
9. Now come to the quantum of relief, the present complaint is filed without any expert opinion which will prove that the unit is not working properly, further the complainant has not produced any expert report that the TV Set in dispute is having some inherent defect. It is not disputed that the Set in dispute started giving problem within warranty period of three year. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the LED set in question started giving troubles within warranty period.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to replace the LED TV of the complainant with new one of same make and model or if the same is not available, then refund its price of Rs.42,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its realisation. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to get this order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 07.02.2018. (Rachna Arora) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Presiding Member
