District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.03/2024.
Date of Institution:.01.01.2024.
Date of Order:30.10.2024.
Gurbaksh Kukreja S/o late Shri Bhagwan Dass Kukreja R/o flat No. 901, Divyalok residency, Sector-21D, Faridabad, Haryana – 121012.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Panasonic India Private Limited, 12th floor, ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122002.
2. Superfix Solutions Pvt. Limited, Ground floor, SCO 9, Dayal Bagh Area, Faridabad, Haryana – 121009 (Panasonic Authorised Services Centre).
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma………..Member
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Deepanshu Dudeja, counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Praveen Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 become proforma opposite party on dated 25.01.2024.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a LED TV (Model No. TH-43FX670 DX) with his hard earned money from Tara Electronics vide bill dated 16.08.2020 vide invoice No. 0300. The TV was adequately working for a period of 2.5 years post the purchase, however the TV abruptly stopped working without any apparent cause. The complainant then contacted customer care of opposite party No.1 on 08.04.2023 and informed them about the same and the customer care, tele caller/representative of opposite party No.1 promised to get the TV repaired as soon as possible. The following day, on 09.04.2023 the customer care representative/technician of opposite party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant to diagnose the problem in the TV and at this stage, the complainant was informed about the checking charges for the service. The said checking charges were not intimated while the complainant raised the complaint telephonically and the technician mentioned these charges for the first time during the visit only. The complainant left with no choice, agreed to pay the same and the technician charged an exorbitant amount of Rs.1180/- in lieu of checking charges. The technician informed the complainant that there was a problem with the power supply of the television and the same needs to be replaced, at that time no estimate for the service was provided by the technician. Approximately after 4-5 days, the technician again visited the premises of complainant to replace the power supply cord, however even after replacing the power supply cord the TV did not switch on. The technician could not figure out the issue clearly depicting his lack of technical knowledge and expertise, thereafter the technician vaguely suggested that there could be a motherboard issue and the TV needs to be taken to the service centre for proper diagnoses and the TV would be picked up by a different team. Even after 10-12 days there was no response from the customer care of opposite party No.1 and no one visited from the team of neither opposite party No.1 nor the opposite party No.2 to collect the TV for repairing. The complainant sent repetitive mails and made complaints to the customer care on 27.04.2023 and 28.04.2023 about the same, yet there was no update/reply from the opposite parties Nos.1& 2. Finally on 03.05.2023, the representative of opposite party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant to collect the TV. On 04.05.2023, the complainant received a call from the customer care informing that there was an issue with the motherboard and backlight of the TV and it would cost about Rs.3800/- for the motherboard and Rs.3500/- for the backlight repair. The complainant agreed to the same and paid the amount in advance as per the direction of opposite party No.2. On 06.05.2023, the TV was delivered after repairing the problem . The complainant was charged a cumulative amount of Rs.7300/- for repairing the motherboard and the backlight of the TV and was provided an invoice dated 05.05.2023. However, to the shock of the complainant, there was a black spot on the bottom left corner of the TV at the time of delivery. Before contacting the customer care, there was no such spot over the panel of the TV and there was only a power issue. Further during the repairing process, the technicians of opposite party No.2 must have undergone extensive diagnosis of the TV for proper analysis of the problem, yet they did not inform the complainant in any way that there was any physical damage to the display panel of the TV. This makes it abundantly clear that the display panel had been damaged during the repairing process or transit back from the customer care to the house of the complainant. On further pursuance by complaining to the customer care about the black spot, the TV was again picked after a lapse of around 5-6 days and it was with the opposite party No.2 for over a month. After the regular perusal by the complainant with opposite party No.2, the TV was returned to complainant on 08.06.2023. However, at the time of delivery, the TV had a scratch at the left side of the panel of the TV. The technician stated that it was a minor scratch on the panel and it would not affect the working of the TC in any way, further he also stated that the panel repair comes with a 3months warranty and in case any issue arises with respect to the panel, the same was the responsibility of the company. The technician provided a job card after the delivery, however, the complainant refused to accept the same and wrote that he was not satisfied with the repair process as there was a scratch on the TV panel. The technician did not collect the job card to escape his liability. Opposite party No.2 refunded a sum of Rs.4000/- as a token of gratitude and asked the complainant to sign the job card. However, complainant reused the same as the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2, despite of being a reputable brand had acted with utmost unprofessionalism. Offering such an amount in lieu of settlement to escape their liability was a clear indication of their fault and deficiency of service at their end. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) replace the damaged TV and handover the TV in a running condition like before to the complainant
b) refund the service amount of INR 4530/-.
c) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had purchased a Panasonic T.V (Model No. TH-43FX670DX) from Tara Electronic son 16.08.2020 for an amount of Rs,41,000/-. The complainant had raised a service request with the opposite party No.1 on 0904.2023 i.e. 2 years 8 months after the purchase of the said Panasonic TV. The opposite party No.1 immediately deputed their engineer and unit was inspected and in the preliminary inspection, issue was found with unit power supply board. The opposite party No.1 quoted a visit charge of Rs.1180/- which was collected and the complainant was informed about the estimate of Rs.5,000/- for further repair as the unit was out of warranty period. On 12.04.2023 the requisite part was received by the opposite party No.1 and the engineer visited to repair the unit, and post repair it was found that one more part was required to make the unit fully functional, which was also informed to the complainant.. To repair the unit further engineer requested the complainant to take the unit to workshop in order to complete the repair. It was submitted that the delay in lifting the unit was attributable to the complainant himself as he refused to give his consent for taking the unit for repair to the workshop. The complainant had given the consent, the unit was picked up and taken for repair. Post verification of the product, an estimate of Rs.7300/- was given to the complainant for complete repairs and accordingly the complainant paid the amount. The TCR receipt was given to the complainant for the payment received. The complainant then reported an issue 1 month after the date of delivery. On receipt of the same the opposite party No.1’s engineer again visited the premises of the complainant multiple times and inspected the unit. No damage/black spot/scratch was found upon inspection by the engineer. Post inspection, the engineer requested the complainant to sign the job sheet dated 05.05.2023, byt the complainant had refused to sign and intimated the engineer that he would observe the working of the product for some days and then he would sign the job sheet. The utter shock & surprise, later, the complainant misused the said job sheet as there was no signature of the Panasonic Engineer on the same. The complainant had paid the aforementioned amount but Rs.4000/- was refunded by the opposite party, hence the complainant had only paid Rs.4480/- as repair cost. Opposite party No.1 was in receipt of the complainant’s email dated 15.10.2023 requesting to replace the damaged unit. The opposite party duly replied to the same vide email dated 04.11.2023 apprising the complainant that the total estimate of Rs.30,110/- was shared with the complainant on 20.09.2023. The complainant was offered a 25% discount on part cost, as an exception. Hence, the total cost after applying the discount, the estimated cost for repair of complainant’s product was Rs.22,877/-. The said LED TV unit had no performance deficiency or manufacturing defect and the unit provided to the complainant had undergone various stringent quality checks before the same was sent to the market. In view of the above there was no branch of the warranty condition as the panel was broken by the customer as also mentioned in the job sheet provided by the technician, which voided the warranty of the LED TV, a such replacement was not covered under the warranty terms and condition and there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. As per order dated 25.01.2024,learned counsel for the complainant stated that I want to become opposite party No.2 as performa opposite party.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties Panasonic India Private Limited–with the prayer to: a) replace the damaged TV and handover the TV in a running condition like before to the complainant. b) refund the service amount of INR 4530/-. c)pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – tax invoice, Ex.CW1/B – invoice of checking charges, Ex.CW1/C (colly) – emails, Ex.CW1/D – copy of invoice paid by the complainant, Ex. CW1/E – photographs of black spot on the panel of the television, Ex.CW1/F – photographs of scratch on the panel of the television, Ex.CW1!/G – job sheet, Ex.CW1/H – legal notice, Ex.CW1/H – photograph of increased scratch on panel, Ex.CW1/J – email dated 31.07.2023, Ex.CW1/K– reply to legal notice, Ex.CW1/L (colly) – rejoinder to reply to legal notice,, Ex.CW1/M(colly) – postal receipts, Ex.CW1/N – job card,, ex.CW1/O (Colly) - estimate received by the complainant, Ex.CW1/P (colly) – reply to the estimate letter sent by the complainant, Ex. CW1/Q – delivery report for opposite party No.1. Ex.CW 1/R – delivery report for opposite party No.1, Ex.CW1/S – returned envelope of opposite party No.2.
Shri Parveen Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1 has suffered a statement that written statement already filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 be read as evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1 and closed the same. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1 has been closed vide order dated 27.09.2024.
7. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a LED TV (Model No. TH-43FX670 DX) from Tara Electronics bearing invoice No. 0300 bill dated 16.08.2020 vide Ex.CW1/A. After a period of 2.5 years post the purchase of TV, the above said TV had gone out of order and was not in proper working condition. Lodging of several complaints to opposite party No.1 personally as well as emails vide Ex.CW1/C (colly) ipso facto go to prove that the TV in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite party No.1. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Hence complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the TV in question with a new one, subject to return the old TV, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 30.10.2024. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
