ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 praying this Commission to direct the OPs to replace the motherboard of the PANASONIC 42” Inch LED TV and in the alternate to replace the same TV with a new one at the same cost and Rs.2,315/- paid towards HDMI cable for Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for causing mental agony and for deficiency in service and such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit and under circumstances.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that, OP No.1, 2 and 3 are the manufacturer of the TV Panasonic India and OP No.4 is the dealer and OP.No.5 is the service provider. It is contended that the complainant purchased 42” Panasonic LED TV on 14.11.2012 from Op.No.4 who is a dealer of the said TV manufactured by OP No.1 by paying Rs.50,498/-.  On 12.06.2018,  the said TV stopped functioning i.e. displaying the picture or image on the screen. Complainant called OP.No.5 who is the authorized service center of OP.No.1 who examined the said TV and advised him to change the HDMI cable for which, he charged Rs.1,416/- as service charges and Rs.899/- as the cost of the HDMI cable but the problem of the TV was not solved whereas it continued. Again the same was complained and OP.No.5 after two days visited with the service engineer and informed that it would take a week to get the spare parts to repair the TV and as the same is to be ordered with OP.No.1. Even after one week the service engineer did not respond and complainant followed with by the service engineer and OP company, and complainant received email from OP.No.2 apologizing the delay and informing the TV set is five years old and they have stopped manufacturing spare parts, and went on induce him to purchase a new TV by offering 25% discount on the MRP of the said TV to the complainant.

3.     It is further submitted that there is no special offer or gesture offered by Op.No.1 and 2 as the dealers are offering him such discount.  In order to shrug of their responsibility, OP No.1, 2 and 3 are saying that the particular model and the spare parts are not being manufactured.  Even though customers are ready to pay the such spare parts several letter and emails were exchanged.

4.     He further contended that he belongs to a middle class family and cannot spend to purchase new TV by paying Rs.50,000/- once in every 5 years Op No.1 in order to enrich unjustly, stopped manufacturing of that TV and its spare parts making the customers to spend huge money to purchase new TV which is unlawful and unfair trade.  Nowhere it is mentioned in the warranty card or in the broacher the manufacturing of the spare parts in respect of the TV sold would be stopped in 5 year time. If such an information had been given, he would have equipped himself to give up his decision to go in for purchase of the TV manufactured by OP.No.1. OP has concealed the said vital information. He has undergone mental agony and suffering.

5.     The complainant had issued legal notice on 11.02.2019 intimating the deficiency, suffering mental agony and to repair the TV or to replace the same for which OP No.1 has given an untenable reply, alleging that the TV was working fine.  Whereas, it has acknowledged that there intermittent issue due to faulty A board and unavailability of such spare part and offering a discount of 25% for the new unit.  Hence the complaint.

6.     Upon the service of notice issued by this commission OP.No.1, 2 and 3 appeared before this commission filed version whereas though notice was served Op.No.4 and 5, remained absent and placed exparte.

7.     In the version filed by Op.No.1, 2 and 3, it has admitted, the purchase of the TV by the complainant and complainant using the said TV for about 4 years without any issues and the service issue was raised and same was attended by the service technician and found that there was no power indicator in the unit, and rectified into working condition after the replacement of the power board. Again on 07.08.2018, a service request was raised in respect of no picture, HDMI cable problem and the same was attended. After receiving the 3^rd complaint 22.08.2018 it was found that the set was working fine and suspecting “A Board” problem and estimation was made for Rs.5,100/- towards the cost. Again 4^th complaint was received for intermittent on /off problem and A-Board problem.  The same was attended by the engineer and the engineer informed that “A Board” need to be replaced and part was not available with the service center and unable to provide its support to the said unit and it was more than 5 years old and hence the commercial solution was also not applicable and letter was sent to that effect.

8.     The complainant was offered a discount of 25% on the MRP of a new product if the complainant purchases a new product of the OP and the same was communicated. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty, it only covers the repair and does not entitle customer for replacement of the product warranty take care of any manufacturing defect or break down of the product during the warranty period. Company at its whole discretion to replace or parts thereof.  Warranty do not also cover replacement of cabinet, stailing materials, Aesthetic material, frames, plastic parts accessories and as damage causing due to natural calamity, lighting, flood or in respect damage caused with mishandling and the cost of transportation.

9.     It is further contended that the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as complaint is miserably has failed to establish that the OP has failed to attend the repair work and to set it right.  There is no engineers expert report in this report the allegation of manufacturing defect. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OPs regarding getting the product set right.  Complaint is also not maintainable in law, as the warranty obligation is only to replacement of the parts and not the replacement of the entire TV set. 

10.   The liability of selling the TV or other product manufactured and after sale service is the responsibility of the authorized dealer/distributor.  The complainant involves several question of fact and law which cannot be decided in a summary trial.  OP.No.1 2 and 3 are having their office in Haryana and hence this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  Complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is filed on vexatious ground. Besides denying all the allegations in each and every para of the complaint, OPs prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

11.   In order to prove the case, Complainant and OPs have filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

12.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

13.   It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the TV from OP.No.4 manufactured by OP No.1, 2 and 3. The relevant documents in respect of the purchase is produced. The warranty certificate and exchange of emails  and the legal notice and the reply is admitted by both parties. 

14.   It is a fact that the complainant purchased the said TV on 14.11.2012 and has first made the complainant in respect of non-functioning of the said TV on 10.08.2018 wherein the service charges SGST and CGST of Rs.1,416/- was collected.  As per Ex. P4, the intimation sent by OP to complainant clearly says that “please note that the part need to be replaced in your TV is no longer available with. Hence we are unable to provide repair support for TV as also your TV is now 5 years old hence no commercial solution is available for the same”. 

15.   Further OP has also intimated the complainant to purchase a new TV of his choice of which they are offering 25% discount on its MRP which the complainant refused to accept as the dealer himself is offering such a discount in respect of the TV’s.  It appears from the correspondences, the complainant wants more discount at the time of purchase of the TV. He has stated that he has come from a middle class family and cannot spent Rs.50,000/- or so once in every 5 years to purchase a TV.

16.   It is quite but natural of a person of a middle class to spend Rs.50,000/- once in every 5 years to purchase a new TV. At the same time, the technology adopted in  manufacturing of electronic goods changes day by day and todays technology will be outdated by tomorrow.  Hence the manufacturer who is facing lot of competition in the business has to be updated and has to adopt recent, modern and innovative technology in order to survive in the market. It is to be observed here that the OP cannot deny its liability to supply the consumable part to the complainant and is under an obligation to make it available to him. Failure to provide same categorically brings within four squares of deficiency in service with the customer. 

17.   It is also not the case of the OP at the time of selling the product the fact that after the warranty period, it shall not be under any liability to supply even any and consumable parts of the even so sold to the consumer warning the complainant went ahead to purchase the said product.  In this case, the OPs categorically stated that the spare parts are not available. It is very significant to mention here that under the warranty the manufacturer is not obligated to replace /refund the cost of the product but indubitably under the obligation to provide service relating to repairs which was deemed to include the supply of spare parts and consumable part to render the back in condition. In this corporate AEON it has become a practice with the manufacturing companying to lure people with advertisement to purchase their product and thereafter flees their hard earned money by denying their liability to provide spare parts and consumable parts to its consumer essential of the working of the during the average length of life. It is a perfect case which affect the consumer community at large irrespective of product used by them. If the manufacturer of the product after sale deny their liability to provide their spare and consumable part. Which are otherwise in proper condition this amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of manufacture to escalate their sale and profit figures by trusting the consumers to abandon the product and purchase new one in its place. 

18.   It becomes absolutely clear that, the OPs in unequivocally terms admitted that the spare parts of the TV is not available and hence the TV of the complainant cannot be repaired even on payment of the cost of the said part. 

19.   It is to be considered here that, the complainant purchased the TV on 14.11.2012 and for the first time after nearly 6 years i.e. in the years 2018 it has brought a complaint regarding the working of the said TV. When this in taken into consideration and also the terms and conditions of the warranty, the TV has out lived its life. Inspite of it that cannot be a ground for the OPs to take a stand that the spare parts are not available or not being manufactured and insist the complainant to purchase a new TV. Taking into all its consideration and as per the observation made above, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not repairing the TV by providing a proper spare part and hence POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

POINT No.2:

20.   Even then as mentioned above, the said TV has out lived its life.  As per the warranty which is only for one year and no extended warranty has been produced. The complainant is not entitle for replacement of the said TV with a new one or its value as he has enjoyed the said TV for nearly 6 years. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion after deducting 75% of the value of the said TV as depreciation, charges we direct OP.No.1, 2 and 3 to pay Rs.12,625/- the remaining 25% of the TV value to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from 11.02.2019 till the payment of entire amount and further a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigations and Rs.10,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony, stress and physical strain. Since OP.No.4 is a dealer who is selling the product of OP.No.1, 2 and 3 and OP.No.5 is a service provider, they cannot be fastened with any liability as it is the duty of the OP.No.1, 2 and 3 to provide the spare parts and other parts required for due functioning of the product sold. Hence Complaint against OP.No.4 and 5 are hereby dismissed. Hence, we answer POINT NO 2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:-

ORDER

1.  Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2.  OP No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,625/-  along with interest at 12% per annum from 11.02.2019 till the payment of entire amount to the Complainant.
3. Complaint against OP.No.4 and 5 are hereby dismissed.
4.  Further OP No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
5.  The OP No.1, 2 and 3 further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
6.  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be destroyed as per the C.P. Act and Rules thereon.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this day the 22^nd day of January 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Original receipt for having Rs.50,499/- towards  said TV

Ex P2: Copy of the certificate of warranty

Ex. P3: Copy of the service charge list.

Ex P4: Copies of emails.

Ex P5: Copy of the notice form the advocate

Ex P6: Postal acknowledgments.

Ex P7: Unserved cover.

Ex P8: Reply given by the OP.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Mr.Manjunath Gouda.K, Authorized Signatory of OP.No.1, 2 & 3.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the Job Sheet dated 10.08.2018.

Ex R2: Copy of the Job sheet dated 23.08.2018.

Ex R3: Copy of the Job sheet dated 05.09.2018.

Ex R4: Copy of the warranty terms and conditions.

Ex R5: Authorization letter.

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

RAK*