…Opposite party……
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. Umesh Pandey, proprietor in person.
Opposite party ex-parte vide order dated 23.08.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a LED TV of Panasonic make Model NO. TH-49FX650D bearing Serial NO. 186PPNBFTC00904 for a consideration of Rs.65000/- on 25.09.2018 manufactured by opposite party. The opposite party offered a warranty period of 4 years on the said LED TV. The above mentioned LED TV Developed defects in its Display and the same was reported to opposite party vide Service request No.R220820133264 dated 22.08.2020, which was repaired after more than a month at a cost of Rs.1770/-. The said LED TV again developed defects in its display and the matter was reported to opposite party vide service request NO. R07092115825614 dated 07th Sep. 2021, which was later attended by a representative of opposite party and he was told that some part of the LED TV had gone faulty and needs to be replaced. Opposite party on 12.10.2021 informed over phone that the required parts were not available with them and they would replace the whole LED TV with a new one free of cost. The confirmation message was conveyed by way of a whatswapp message. The very next day they withdrew their statement and said that there was a calculation mistake and the replacement would cost Rs.491/- by way of whatsapp message. Though the complainant gave his consent to the deal on both the occasions they did not bother to do anything and went on enjoying the frustration & in convenience of the complainant. Meanwhile on 20.10.2021, the complainant received a call from one person from mobile No. 9341265245 and he claimed to be from Panssonic and told that he was instructed by the higher officials of the opposite party to resolve the issue right then and there and he asked the complainant to pay Rs.7759/- to replace the said LED TV with an extended warranty of 3 years. The complainant paid the money online to him against the invoices shared by him and he went off with the complainant’s money. Opposite party Regional Manager Shri Jatinder Singh mobile NO. 9599008602 confirmed the complainant on telecom on 28.10.2021 at 11:05 that he needs to pay Rs.8850/- for replacement of the said LED TV. The complainant was ready to bear the expenses but the Regional Manager wanted an Advance Payment without any Bank Guarantee. The opposite party again revised their demand to Rs.10,567/- and again in Advance and the only acceptable mode of payment was through online mode, similar to the earlier fraud as the complainant had faced earlier. He strongly believe that Panasonic might be involved in this fraud. The complainant offered the opposite party cash/cheque/online transfer or any mode acceptable to them but only after delivery of the new product but the opposite party was not ready for any action before an online payment was made. Under these circumstances the complainant was afraid of getting cheated again and was not in a position to make an advance payment. The complainant showing a bigger heart offered advance payment to the opposite party against a bank guarantee by the opposite party but they turned the complainants proposal down creating a deadlock situation. 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) a) Refund the cost of LED TV with Money Colelcted earlier towards the replacement of faulty parts plus the money lost in fraud i.e. Rs.65,000/- + Rs.1770/- + Rs.7759/- = Rs.74529/- alongwith interest@ 18% p.a. from the date of invoice i.e. from 25.09.2018.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 10,000 /-as litigation expenses.
alongwith interest@ 18% p.a. from the date of invoice i.e. from 25.09.2018.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 10,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Notice issued to opposite party not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.08.2022.
3. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
4 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) Refund the cost of LED TV with Money Collected earlier towards the replacement of faulty parts plus the money lost in fraud i.e. Rs.65,000/- + Rs.1770/- + Rs.7759/- = Rs.74529/- alongwith interest@ 18% p.a. from the date of invoice i.e. from 25.09.2018. b)pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 10,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence photocopies of adhaar card, tax invoice, repair estimate,, tax invoices,, receipt, Cyber Crime Incident,, emails, registration certificate,
6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party.
7. Opposite party is directed to :
a) refund the paid amount after deduction the taxes and GST to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 2200 /-as litigation expenses.
The complainant is also directed to hand over the old LED TV in question to the opposite party after receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on:14.10.2022. (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.
