Tripura

West Tripura

CC/77/2015

Sri Somenjit Ghosh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.K.Deb, Mr.S.Banik, Mr.S.Saha.

28 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA  :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 77  of  2015

Sri Somenjit Ghosh,
S/O- Sri Naresh Ghosh,
Ashram Chowmuhani, Dhaleswar, 
P.S. East Agartala, 
Agartala, West Tripura.            .….…...Complainant.VERSUS

1. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,
First Floor, ABW Tower IFFCO Chowk,
Sector 25, Gurgaon-122 001,
Haryana, India

2. Proprietor of M/S OM Varieties,
Datta Super Market,
Sakuntala Road,
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura.

3. Proprietor of Joyram Service Centre,
RMS Chowmuhani,
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura.              ............Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Kushal Deb,
  Sri Saikat Saha,
  Sri Sagar Banik,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No.1             : Sri Tapas Pal,
  Advocate.  

For the O.Ps No.2 & 3        : None appeared.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 28.05.2016

J U D G M E N T 

            This case was filed by one Somenjit Ghosh  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency of service by Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others. Petitioners case is short is that he purchased one professional Video Camera on payment of Rs.90,000/-. From the shop of O.P. No.2. Camera was not functioning after few months. So, the complainant placed it before the authorized service of Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. at Joyram Service Centre, O.P. No.3. O.P. No.3 failed to repair it. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. did not cooperate. Seller O.P. No.2 also misbehaved. So, petitioner had to go to Kolkata and repair it on payment of Rs.2500/-. Again  his camera was damaged for his own fault. It was repaired by service centre at kolkata. The camera was not functioning during the warranty period of 3 years so he claimed compensation, total Rs.89,932/-.
    
2.        Notice served upon on all 3 O.Ps but only O.P. No.1, Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. appeared and contested the case. Proprietor, Om Varieties and also Proprietor of Joyram Service centre did not appear. So case proceeded against them exparte. 

3.        Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. appeared filed W/S denying the claim. It is stated that warranty was for 12 months. The camera was all right for about 12 months. The damage was not covered by warranty. So, Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd have no deficiency of service at all. 

4.        On the basis of contention raised by petitioner and O.P. following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the product camera was damaged and not functioning during the warranty period?
        (II) Whether the petitioner suffered for deficiency of service of O.Ps and entitled to get compensation?
    
5.        Petitioner produced cash memo, warranty, extended warranty, air tickets, job sheet which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. Petitioner also examined one witness complainant of this case.

6.        O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Sandip Singh. But he did not appear to stand cross examination. No other documentary evidence given and O.P. also did not argue the case later on. 
        
7.        On the basis of evidence produced by both the parties we shall now determine the points. 

        FINDINGS AND DECISION:    
8.        It is admitted and established fact that Panasonic Camera was purchased by the petitioner on payment on Rs.90,000/- . It was purchased for self employment as petitioner was a photographer. The cash memo Exhibit- 1 series support this purchase of the product on 26.09.13.  From the job sheet as produced it is found that the product was placed before Joyram Service Centre at Agartala on 02.12.14 on that day by a letter O.P. No.3 informed that the camera could not be repaired in their service centre. The letter in this regard support it. Why service centre of Panasonic could not repair, why follow up action not taken by the service centre not explained at all. In the letter Joyram Service centre requested the petitioner to make contact with the seller for solution of the problem. But the seller O.P. No.2 Proprietor Om Varieties did not cooperate. No step taken by the seller. This is clearly unfair trade practice by O.P. No.2. 

9.        We have gone through the warranty card issued by the company Panasonic India Ltd. Warranty is for 3 years. It is clearly written that customer who register as user on the website will receive an extended warranty for repairing valid for 3 years. Report of system notification for registration is produced to support that petitioner registered his name as user and it was registered on 27th September 2013. So, the repairing is covered up to September 2016. Petitioner accordingly produced the camera before the authorized service centre of Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. O.P. No.2, Joyram Service Centre. But for unknown reason Joyram Service Centre did not repair and stated that they were not recognized for service in warranty condition for this model camera. But another service centre of Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. at Kolkata repaired his camera on payment of Rs.2,500/- by petitioner.
    
10.        The O.P. No.1, Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. stated in the written statement that the camera damaged due to entry of insect in the camera causing damage to the PCbs which does not cover the warranty. But as per service job sheet of the Capital Enterprise, authorized service centre of Panasonic the Camera can not  operate as fan motor stopped. In the written statement it is also stated that for North East region the authorized service centre is situated at Guwahati. But Joyram Service centre at Agartala also claiming to be authorized service centre of Panasonic. This is unfair trade practice indeed.

11.        From the analysis of the evidence as produced by both the parties it is apparently clear that O.P. No.1 Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. failed to repair the camera within the warranty period of 3 years. Warranty covered the repairing of fan motor but the authorized service centre O.P. No.3 did not repair and no cooperation made. The seller Om Varieties also did not cooperate in the matter of repairing. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. O.P. No.1  was duty bound to arrange the repairing through service centre. But it was not done. 

12.        Under compelling circumstances petitioner had to go to Kolkata for repairing the camera. He had to spend air fare Rs.13,932/- and had to stay there and also repairing cost was paid by him. Total expenditure was Rs.34,932/-. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. is under liability to pay this amount to the petitioner. 

13.        O.P. No.2 being the seller was duty bound to cooperate with the petitioner for the repairing of the camera. But he did not cooperate and made ill behavior. This is unfair trade. For that O.P. No.2 has to compensate the petitioner and pay amount of Rs.10,000/-. 

14.        O.P. No.3, Proprietor of Joyram Service Centre claimed to be the authorized service centre of Panasonic India Ltd. It also did not cooperate with the petitioner and was doing unfair trade practice. Therefore, they are also under liability to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as compensation. Both the points are decided accordingly.

15.        In view of our above findings over the two points the petition is partly allowed. We decided that Panasonic India Ltd will pay cost of repairing Rs.34,932/- to the petitioner for their deficiency of service. We also decide that other two O.Ps No. 2 and 3 shall pay Rs.10,000/- each, total Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner for their unfair trade and deficiency of service. Thus, in total the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.54,932/-. No other cost is given. Direct both the O.Ps to pay the amount as stated above within a period of 2 months. If it is not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.  
       
                      Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA