Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/659/2018

Amit Kumar Vason - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India Pvt. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Arora Adv.

09 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	659/2018
Date of Institution	:	20.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	09.08.2019

 

                                       

                                               

 

Amit Kumar Vason s/o late Sh.Som Nath aged about 38 years r/o H.No.422, Manali House, Ambala City, Haryana.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor, Ambience Island, NH-8 Gurgaon, Haryana through its President/Managing Director/CEO.

 

2.     B.G. Electronics, SCO 47-48, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT. PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Vivek Arora, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Vikas Gupta, Adv. for OP No.1

OP No.2 exparte.      

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one 50” Plasma TV from OP No.2 vide Invoice dated 02.11.2013 for Rs.57,500/- having three years guarantee/warranty.  In January, 2017 immediately after the expiry of the warranty/guarantee period, the TV started vertical lines and the he managed to check the same through Company’s Engineer but he was unable to repair the same due to non-availability of the parts due to discontinuation of the said model.  It has further been averred that it becomes intolerable that since the company had stopped manufacturing the product where should the complainant go even for its repair because the spare parts were not available even in the service center.  The deprecation applicable to the Plasma TV in question is 85% as per the OPs.  The complainant was informed that as per the warranty terms and conditions in case of non-availability of component, the company was to provide commercial solution to the customer as per the depreciation policy.  It has further been averred that the product are manufactured only for a limited period of warranty in order to cheat the customers.  The complainant served a legal notice dated 24.10.2018 upon OP No.1 to which he was informed vide reply dated 05.11.2018 that on inspection, it was found that the display panel of the unit was defective, which is not available.  According to the complainant, the act of OPs in refusing to return the amount of the product being his rightful claim amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         Despite due service through registered post, OP No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.01.2019.
3.         In written statement, OP No.1 has admitted the factual matrix of the case with regard to the purchase of the Plasma TV in question, with warranty of three years. It has further been pleaded that the complainant alleged the issue of vertical lines  in January, 2017 but the legal notice  was served after 1 year 0 Months and 24 days, which creates a doubt in the mind of any prudent man as to why the complainant waited for such a long period for initiating action against the OPs.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant used the TV in question  for around 4-5 years from the date of its purchase as the first call was raised by him on 28.07.2018 and as such the legal commitment by the Manufacturer of providing three years of warranty period on the TV in question was fully satisfied, as no complaint was raised during warranty period.  It has further been pleaded that it neither gave any assurance at the time of purchase of the TV in question or bound down by any contract with the complainant that it will continue to manufacturer the TV in question and its spare parts.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         It is admitted case of the complainant that the warranty period of the Plasma TV had already expired and during the warranty period there was no complaint. It is also evident from the documentary evidence that the complainant got served the legal notice upon OP No.1 after a lapse of 4 ½ years of the purchase of the TV in question and more than 1 ½  year after the expiry of the warranty period. In case there is guarantee or warranty then there is a contract between the purchaser and seller to replace or rectify the goods, but, where the guarantee or warranty period expires, the contract between the purchaser and seller of goods comes to an end. After the warranty period, there is no contract between the purchaser and the seller. Since the warranty period had already expired, so the complainant was left with no right to ask the OPs to provide him the spare parts for the TV nor the OPs have any liability to provide the spare parts to him in the market.  In case of automobiles, the position is different because in that case life span of a vehicle is much longer than the electronic goods. Nowadays in the electronic goods, particularly TV, there is rapid upgradation.  Hardly any model lasts for 2-3 years in the market after which that model is replaced by a new one with a new upgradation/device.           
6.         The position of automobile industry is different than these electronic goods.  In case there is no up-gradation in the TVs, PCs or the mobile phones, then no one likes to purchase the old model.  As such, in such a situation, it cannot be expected from the manufacturers or the dealers to retain the spare parts in its store.  The contract between the complainant and the OPs had already come to an end. He cannot be allowed to say that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in not providing the spare parts because in the fast and ever changing developments in the world of electronics, OP No.1 cannot survive in the business if they will store the old items or parts of electronic goods like TVs/mobile phone/PCs. To survive in the market, the dealers or the manufacturers have to keep pace with the developments and technology.  Deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs can only be attributed if any contract between the complainant and the OPs is infringed and the terms and conditions are violated.  There was no warranty or guarantee by the OPs that the TV will last long for so many years even after the warranty period. 
7.         Since there was three years warranty and the complainant knew that after three years, he would be keeping the TV at his own risk and responsibility, so there was no implied contract also imposing liability on the OPs to provide the spare parts.  In daily life some time we have to throw the electronic goods after they become out of order and cannot be repaired because of non-availability of the spare parts.  In case a liability is imposed on the OPs, then it will not be possible for the OPs and every manufacturer or dealer in electronic goods to survive in the fast changing industry of electronics. Once a specific warranty period was provided, the principle of Corpus Juris Secundrum is not applicable nor does the same comes to the rescue of the complainant.  Reliance can be placed on the judgment in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr., II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) wherein it was observed that what is relevant in the case at hand is that the warranty conditions were specially stated and this is not a case of silence of a contract of sale as to warranty. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing replacement of the vehicle.
8.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, the consumer complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to avail 15% discount on the new product of the company, as offered by the Counsel for OP No.1 during the course of arguments.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09.08.2019 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER