Complaint filed on: 07-08-2013

                                                      Disposed on: 28-07-2014

BEFORE THE BENGALURU IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, 7^TH FLOOR, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052     

C.C.No.1467/2013

DATED THIS THE 28^th JULY 2014

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.JANARDHANA, MEMBER

Complainant: -   

                                                S.C.Maini,

                                                Ex.Design Manager,

                                                Surya Roshni Ltd,

                                                Malanpur,

                                                Residential Address:-

                                                Flat No.001, Garu Dadri

                                                Residency, Near CMR College,

                                                OMBR Layout, Banasawadi,

                                                Bangalore – 43      

V/s

Opposite parties:-        

1. The Manager,

CROMA, Indira Nagar,

767-767/1, HAL 2^nd floor, 100 feet road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-38

1. DTS Electronics, Unit No.001, (Basement), Paravathi Plaza, 105, Richmond Road, Bangalore-25
2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd,

Spic Building Annexe,

VI floor, 88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-32

ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs no.1 to 3, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs to pay Rs.50,000=00 as compensation towards mental and physical trouble.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

Son of the complainant Mr.Gaurva Maini purchased one LED TV model no.TH-L32E3D by paying Rs.35,490=00 on 4-3-2012 from the shop of CROMA, Indiranagar, Bangalore and got installed on one wall of his residence. Few days back, they shifted their rented house to another place in Bangalore and decided to fix the LED on pedestal, they called an electrician for fixing LED on pedestal and he fixed on pedestal. After fixing when he started LED, the half of the screen became black and half was visible and they complained at customer care center DTS Electronics Bangalore on 25-7-2013. An Engineer Mr.Lokesh came from service centre on 27-7-2013, after checking the LED, he told that, the panel of LED was damaged due to fixing the bracket by long size screws by electrician and panel cannot be repaired, it will be changed by new one and Rs.22,500=00 will be charged. As the complainant was design manager in Surya Roshni Ltd, Malanpur and has 34 years of experience in designing, so he found that it is the fault of design of mounting pedestal of LED, the design of bracket should be such that it should have two numbers of inserting plates rather than one. One plate should be as it is means having four numbers tapped holes and behind that one inserting plate should be blank means without any hole so that long screws cannot damage the panel.  He got one year training of tool design from PTC Okhal, New Delhi in the year 1976-1977, he learned to design jigs and fixtures, press tools etc. they can see many blinds working on the press tool M/c in the ESCORTS Co. at Faridabad, Haryana. No accident take place due to their blindness. There may be other options of designing pedestal so that panel should not damages at any way. If particular length of screws to be fitted then it should be clearly written on back of the LED pedestal bracket and also in operating instruction booklet as one can see on LG refrigerator every instruction of operation is written on the refrigerator itself. They can see the example of Toyota a car making company of Japan who has beard a loss 1,60,00,00,000 dollar’s last month for their wrong design of car. So their loss should be bearded by the PANASONIC company as the design of bracket is wrong so they should be given Rs.50,000=00 the price of their LED plus compensation against their mental as well as physical trouble by this loss. Hence the present complaint is filed.

3. After service of the notice, the OPs no.1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel and version has been filed by the OPs no.1 and 3, contending inter-alia as under:

The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. The complainant has come before the forum with unclean hands. The complainant has purchased a LED TV on 4-3-2012 & after purchasing the LCD TV the persons attached with this OP used to go to the purchaser’s place and check the product and verify the condition of the goods and install the product. Likewise in this case a call from the complainant on 5-3-2012 came and the same was registered in Job no.PI-ASC-1203-011139 for installation and their persons verified and checked the TV condition and the same was in good condition while installing. After one year four months from the date of purchase the complainant has registered a complaint in the customer care on 26-7-2013 and the same was registered in the customer case history. At that time he came to know that the panel was broken due to fixing the bracket by using long size screws and the same was intimated to the complainant. At the time of filling complaint the complainant himself admitted that few days back they have shifted the house and fixed the LCD TV with some electrician. It is pertinent to note here that the panel is broken by the customer even the product is under warranty they have not replaced a new panel at free of cost. If the panel is broken the customer has to buy a new one and this OP can install the same. On 2-8-2013 the complainant sent a notice through email to their regional office and he admitted the reason for being broken that he shifted the house for which he fixed the TV with his electrician thereafter only the TV is not working. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP in rendering its service towards the complainant. The present complaint is an afterthought and premeditated attempt to deceive this forum. The complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency of service. The complainant has no cause of action and the panel was also broken after one year four months from the date of purchase on the fault of the complainant and not by the OP and in their company norms the 1^st OP cannot replace for broken done by the side of the customer at any point of time. In these circumstances the refund of the price of the TV is not at all acceptable. So it is prayed to dismiss the complaint of complainant with cost.

4. So from the averments of the complaint of complainant and version of the OPs, the following points arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the design of mounting pedestal of LED TV model is faulty and defective and on account of it the panel of LED TV was damaged, so the OPs are liable to indemnify the loss caused to him?
2. If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
3. What order?

5. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Negative

Point no.2:  In view of the negative findings on the

Point no.1, the complainant is not

entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          6. So as to prove the case, one Gaurav Maini has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced documents along with complaint and also produced documents along with affidavit. On the other hand, one M.A.Prakash, Assistant General Manager of OPs no. 1 and 3 has filed his affidavit and one Prem Sai who being the Store Manager of 2^nd OP has filed his affidavit on behalf of the 2^nd OP and produced documents which are marked as Ex.B1 to B4. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides in between lines.

7. One Gaurav Maini, who being the son of complainant has stated in his affidavit that, he purchased one LED TV model no.TH-L32E3D by paying Rs.35,490=00 on 4-3-2012 from the shop of CROMA, Indiranagar, Bangalore and got installed on one wall of his residence. Few days back, they shifted their rented house to another place in Bangalore and decided to fix the LED on pedestal, they called an electrician for fixing LED on pedestal and he fixed on pedestal. After fixing when he started LED, the half of the screen became black and half was visible and they complained at customer care center i.e. DTS Electronics Bangalore on 25-7-2013. An Engineer Mr.Lokesh came from service centre on 27-7-2013, after checking the LED, he told that, the panel of LED was damaged due to fixing the bracket by long size screws by their electrician and panel cannot be repaired and it will be changed by new one and Rs.22,500=00 will be charged. As his father was design manager in Surya Roshni Ltd, Malanpur and has 34 years of experience in designing, so he found that it is the fault of design of mounting pedestal of LED, the design of bracket should be such that it should have two numbers of inserting plates rather than one. One plate should be as it is means having four numbers tapped holes and behind that one inserting plate should be blank means without any hole so that long screws cannot damage the panel.  His father got one year training of tool design from PTC Okhal, New Delhi in the year 1976-1977. He is enclosing herewith the photocopies of operating instructions manuals of four companies who are making LED TV named Sony, Samsung, Videocon and Toshiba and they also wrote in the manual that only screws supplied with the TV should be used otherwise TV panel may be damaged but in the manual of Panasonic neither the sizes of screws are written nor they supply with the TV. It’s means the Panasonic Co. do not care for their customer and they are not loyal to their customers and it proves that Panasonic is a non-standard Co. and the management of Panasonic is living in dark. They have been cheated by the Panasonic Co. by selling the LED of faulty design. It is relevant to tell the Panasonic Co. that BMW a car making company of Germany rolled back one lakh seventy six thousand cars in America for their design fault in power brake system. The design of Toyota a car making company of Japan who beard a loss of 1,60,00,00,000 dollars in July 2013 for their wrong design of car, so their loss should be bearded by the company as the design of bracket is wrong and they should be given Rs.50,000=00 the price of their LED + compensation against their mental as well as physical trouble by this loss. So the complaint be allowed and grant relief.

8. The complainant has produced photocopy of the manual of OP company wherein it is stated that, screw for fixing the TV on to the wall hanging bracket (not supplied with the TV) and depth of screw minimum 6 mm and maximum 18 mm and view from the side is also shown in the photo of the manual and assembling the pedestal is also shown in the manual and they have given instruction specifically that, two or three more people are required to install and the remove the TV. The complainant has produced the some copies of manual of Toshiba, Sony and Samsung in respect of installing the accessories (wall-mounting). One email letter of OP dated 12-8-2013 is found in the documents of complainant wherein it is stated, the penal of TV needs to be replaced and repair estimation has also been shared with the complainant and requested the complainant to approve the estimate and they can advise the service team to proceed with the repair and resolve his problem. The complainant has produced receipt copy issued by CROMA store and Panasonic LED TV for Rs.35,490=00 and Rs.250=00 towards price of TV and service charges and these receipts are in the name of Gaurav Maini who being the son of complainant. One authority letter is produced which was given by Gaurav Maini in the name of his father S.C.Maini for appearing in the complaint filed before the district forum against the Panasonic company. In fact the complainant is S.C.Maini and not Gaurav Maini and Gaurav Maini who being the son of complainant has no authority to give authority letter to represent the complainant in this case filed against the OPs Company before the district forum. The documents produced by the complainant as mentioned above do not establish satisfactorily that design and mounting pedestal of LED TV model supplied by the OPs company is faulty and defective and the OPs are liable to indemnify it.   

9. The oral evidence of Gaurav Maini who being the son of the complainant i.e. S.C.Maini that the pedestal of LED TV model supplied to them by OPs is faulty and defective and OPs are liable to indemnify is not corroborated by clear and tangible documentary evidence.  

10. Let us have a cursory glance at the material evidence of the OPs. One M.A.Prakash, who being the Assistant General Manager of the OPs no.1 and 3 have stated in his affidavit that, the complainant has purchased a LCD TV on 4-3-2012 and after purchasing the LCD TV the persons of their company used to go the purchaser’s place and check the product and verify the condition of the goods and install the product. Likewise in this case, their persons verified and checked the TV condition and the same is in good condition while installing. After one year four months from the date of purchase the complainant has registered a complaint in their customer care on 26-7-2013 and the same was registered in the customer case and person of their company went to the complainant’s house for service and checked the LCD TV and at that time he came to know that the panel was broken due to fixing the bracket by using long size screws and the same was intimated to the complainant and the complainant himself admitted that few days back they have shifted the house and fixed the LED TV with some electrician and the complainant told the said persons to replace a new panel at free of cost which could not be permissible as per the rules and conditions. The panel was broken by the customer even the product is under warranty they have not replaced a new panel at free of cost. If the panel is broken the customer has to buy a new one and OPs can install the same. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the present complaint is an afterthought. The complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency of service as defined under section 2 (1) and (g) of the CP Act. The complainant failed to show any fault, imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner in performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract. . The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The service engineer noticed that the screen of the TV has crack on it. Such thing can occur only on external impact. In the present case the complainant has mishandled the TV that is why the cracks have appeared on the screen due to which the display is not functioning. The penal of the said TV has been broken due to an external impact. The damaged panel of the TV cannot be repaired and the same can be replaced. But the replacement can be carried out only on chargeable basis for which the complainant is not agreeable. So it is prayed to dismiss the complaint of complainant with cost.

11. Exhibit-B1 and B2 are the copies of Job sheet dated 5-3-2012 and 26-7-2013 for having fixed LED TV in the house of complainant after purchase and for replacement of penal on payment basis. One email letter of OPs dated 28-8-2013 is found wherein it is stated that, the set was installed by third party and physically panel damaged case they have given estimation to the customer and requested to share the estimate amount so that they can close the case. Email reply of Gaurav Maini dated 27-7-2013 is found in the document of OPs wherein son of the complainant has stated that due to wrong screwing the panel has been affected and panel has been damaged which needs to be replaced and requested the OP to know the total cost to get it replaced. Email of DTS service centre is found in the document of OPs wherein they have informed the complainant’s son that estimation for the TH-L32E3D panel including service charge is Rs.21,170=00.

12. The evidence of employee of OPs that, the penal of LED TV was damaged by the third party one year three months after purchase and they can make replacement of LED panel on payment basis stands corroborated by Exhibit-B1 and B2 and email letters of OPs and son of complainant dated 28-8-2012 and 27-7-2013 produced by the OPs.

13. On making careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of OPs and compare the same with the material evidence of complainant, it is made explicitly clear that, after purchase of LED TV model no.TH-L32E3D from CROMA store on 4-3-2012, the complainant has used the LED TV in his house by mounting the same to wall and while shifting his house to another house, the complainant got fixed LED TV with the help of local electrician and at that time the penal of LED TV was damaged due to non-handling of the same properly as per the instruction of the OPs given in the manual and when the complainant has made the complaint with the OPs for replacement of penal, the OPs have agreed to make replacement on payment basis only and accordingly the OPs have intimated the complainant about the estimation as Rs.21,170=00, but the complainant did not agree for the same and thereafter the complainant has come up with the present complaint making allegations of negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in not supplying the proper panel and the panel supplied by the OPs is faulty and defective etc. But unfortunately the complainant has not vouchsafed any believable documentary evidence to show before the forum that the penal of LED TV supplied by the OPs is defective and faulty. The oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant in this regard are insufficient to hold that the panel of LED TV supplied by the OPs is faulty and defective and the OPs are liable to indemnify as stated in the complaint. On the other hand, the OPs have proved with the material evidence that the penal supplied by them was in good condition at the time of purchase of LED TV by complainant and the complainant got fixed the LED TV to the wall in his house and used the LED TV for about the one year and 5 to 6 months and while shifting his house to another house the local electrician came and damaged the panel of LED TV & if the complainant wants replacement, the OPs are ready to make replacement provided the complainant pays the cost of LED TV panel. The defence of the OPs as stated in the version and evidence of the employee of OPs is corroborated by the copies of Job sheet, email letter correspondences between the complainant’s son and OPs and as such we are of the opinion that, the oral and documentary evidence of OPs are more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the material evidence of complainant. So we are of the view that, the complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has utterly failed to prove this point by placing convincing material evidence, and accordingly we answer this point in a negative.

14. In view of our negative finding on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

          The complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 28^th day of July 2014).

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

1.      Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

1. Mr.Gaurav Maini, who being the complainant’s son was examined on 18-11-2013.

2.      Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:-

a) Document no.1:         Photocopy of the manual of OP

Company

          b) Document no.2:         Some copies of manual of

Toshiba, Sony and Samsung Company in respect of installing the Accessories

c) Document no.3:          Email letter of OP dated 12-8-2013

d) Document no.4:         Receipt copy issued by CROMA store and Panasonic LED TV for Rs.35,490=00 and Rs.250=00 towards price of TV and service charges and these receipts issued in the name of Gaurav Maini who being the complainant son.

e) Document no.5:          One Authority letter which was given by Gaurav Maini in the name of his father S.C.Maini

3.      Witness examined on behalf of the OPs by way of affidavit:

          a)       M.A.Prakash, who being the Assistant General  

Manager of OPs was examined on 9-10-2013.

4. Documents produced on behalf of the opposite party:-

a) Exhibit-B1 and B2:    Copies of Job-sheet dated 5-3-2012 and 26-7-2013

          b) Exhibit-B3:                Email letter of OPs dated 28-3-

2013

          c) Exhibit-B4:                 Email reply of Gaurav Maini

Dated 27-7-2013

          d) Exhibit-B5:                Email letter of DTS service center

Witness examined on behalf of complainants:

1. Sri.C.S.Raghunath, who being the complainant in Complaint No.04/2009 (EP.No.02/2009); and Complaint No.3/2009 (EP.No.4/2009) was examined in two cases separately dated 10-08-2012

2. Smt.Harsha Raghunath, who being the complainant in Complaint No.62/2009 (EP.No.03/2009) was examined on 10-8-2012