Order-8.

Date-21/03/2017.

       Shri Kamal De, President.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The case of the Complainant in short is that he purchased a 32” LED Panasonic TV from M/s. Khosla Electronics, Hazra for Rs.25,000/- on 11.02.2014. The said TV was performing well and no trouble was experienced. But on the eve of 25^th September, 2015, the said Panasonic TV went off giving blank screen, though the power was received on the monitor, sound was received and channel could be changed. The Complainant lodged a complaint with the Panasonic Help Desk on the following date and subsequently, their Service Engineer attended on 28^th September,2015. On inspection, the Service Engineer suspected a fault with the panel and the estimate for repair was received by the Complainant from the Service Centre vide email on 1^st October,2015 and the estimated amount to be  a sum of Rs.18,000/- inclusive of component cost and service charges.

Such estimate is found to be unacceptable by the Complainant and he sent an email to one Mr. SudiptaChaudhuri of Panasonic stationed at Kolkata informing him about the situation and seeking his intervention. He assured that he would look into the matter. The Complainant thereafter followed it up with him several times, but to no good. The Complainant has prayed for refund of money of Rs.25,000/- along with other reliefs. Hence this case.

OP has not appeared in this case. The case has proceeded ex parte against the OP.

Point for Decision

1)         Whether the OP has been deficient in rendering service to the Complainant ?

2)         Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

            We have perused the documents of records i.e. photocopy of Tax Invoice dated 11.02.2014 of an amount of Rs.25,000/-, photocopy of job sheet, photocopies of emails and other documents on records.

            It appears that the Complainant purchased the subject Panasonic TV on 11.02.2014. It developed problems on 25.09.2015. It is stated that the TV broke down on the eve of 25^th September,2015 and no trouble was experienced before that. Suddenly, the picture of the TV went off giving a blank screen, though power was received in the monitor and sound was also received and channel could be changed. On logging a complaint to Panasonic, the Service Engineer of Panasonic attended the problems and diagnosed a fault in the panel and subsequently, the Complainant was advised to replace the same with a new one for which an estimate of Rs.18,000/- was provided.

We find that problem developed beyond the warranty period. We also find, TV was purchased from M/s. Khosla Electronics, Hazra on 11.02.2014, but M/s. Khosla Electronics, Hazrais not made a party in this case. Moreover, we find that the Engineer from OP Company attended the problems and found that black light is on and display not coming and gave an estimate of Rs.18,000/- including component cost and service charge.

            It is not the case of the Complainant that OP did not entertain the complaint or did not visit the faulty TV set. So, there is no deficiency of service as such on the part of the OP Company. The only allegation of the Complainant is that the charge of repair or estimate is too high and it is not expected from a reputed brand, like Panasonic. We are afraid the subject TV set is beyond the warranty period. We cannot make any order for free service against OP. as the stipulated warranty period is over. We do not find any deficiency of service against the OP. as such.

            Consequently, the instant case merits no success.

Hence,

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is dismissed ex parte but on merit against the OP.

            No order as to cost.