BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.112 of 2016
Date of Instt. 14.03.2016
Date of Decision: 27.03.2019
Harmeet Kumar aged about 30 years son of Sh. Hira Lal R/o 84, Bhai Ditt Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office No.88, 6th Floor, SPIC Building, Mount Road, Guindy, Cheenai, through its Mg. Director.
2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Head Office First Floor, ABW Tower, PEFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon, through its Mg. Director/Authorized Signatory.
3. Fair Deal Electronics, Kothi No.56, Shakti Nagar, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner.
4. Shalimar Marketing, Shakti Tower, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Signatory.
…..….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Sachin Sharda, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. M. P. S. Cheema, Adv Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.
OPs No.3 and 4 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased LED TV on 10.11.2012 of Panasonic from OP No.4, vide Invoice No.1231 dated 10.11.2012 for Rs.43,000/- on installments from Bajaj Finance. At the time of purchasing, the representative of the OP stated that there was guarantee of one year and after that warranty of 2 years. After the purchase of the said LED, there was a problem of picture quality in the LED TV and after that the complainant visited the office of OP No.4 and then the executive of OP No.4 called the service centre and then the engineer visited the house of the complainant in the last week of April, 2013 and stated that there was a problem in the LED and after repairing the internal setting of the LED and thereafter, LED was working properly.
2. That the complainant was shocked and surprised in the morning of 04.06.2013, when the complainant switched on the LED and saw that there was again a same problem in the LED TV and the complainant called the help line number and they booked the complaint of the complainant and given the complaint No.2D1306-615866 and answered the complainant that the engineer will visit the house of the complainant within 24 working hours and then the engineer visited the house of the complainant on 08.06.2014 and stated that there was problem in the panel of the LED and due to that there was problem in the picture quality and he advised that they will change the panel of LED TV and after that this problem will never occur again in future. Then again after four months, there was same problem occurred in the LED and the complainant again contacted the OP No.3 on telephone and accordingly, OP No.3 assured the complainant that the engineer will visit the house of the complainant and to rectify the problem occurred therein and thereafter, the engineer visited the house of the complainant and after checking the LED stated that there was same problem and after checking, the engineer stated that after repairing of the internal motherboard, the problem will be rectified and never occurred there again, but it is utter shock and surprise again in the next month i.e. 26th December, 2013, the same problem was occurred and at this time, the complainant again called the service centre and they assured that engineer will visit within 24 hours and when the engineer came to the house of the complainant, he found the same problem again, then he flatly stated that as your LED is out of warranty and you have to pay the repair charges, which is approximately Rs.28,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant sent email and reported the whole matter to the OP, but to no effect and thereafter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint, which was decided on 12.09.2014, wherein direction was given to the OP to repair the LED TV of the complainant free of cost, but even after repairing the same problem occurred after six months and then the engineer of the complainant visited the house of the complainant in the month of July, 2015, who stated that there is a manufacturing defect in the panel of the LED, the same cannot be rectified, but till today the OP has not gave satisfactory services to the complainant rather lingering on the matter on one way or the other. The act and conduct of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which gave a cause of action to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the price of the LED TV i.e. Rs.43,000/- and also pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.3 and 4 did not come present and ultimately, OPs No.3 and 4 were proceeded against exparte. Whereas OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum as the complainant has himself concealed the true and correct facts. The LED in question is out of warranty and repair of the LED is to be carried out only on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant, but complainant refused to get it repaired on chargeable basis. The LED in question has been purchased on 10.11.2012 and warranty of one year expired on 09.11.2013. The complainant knowingly the fact that LED is out of warranty, was adamant for replacement of LED TV and did not permit to visit service engineer to check the product in question and to rectify the same. Thus, the complainant is trying to take benefit of his own wrong and has concealed the true facts. It is further averred that the LED in question was duly repaired by replacing the panel of the LED time to time even as per the order of the District Forum dated 12.09.2014. It is further alleged that the answering OP is still ready to render services with regard to the LED TV in question on chargeable basis as the same is out of warranty. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the LED TV on 10.11.2012 for Rs.43,000/- and admitted that the said LED TV having one year warranty, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the complainant as per record made first complaint to the OP on 04.06.2013 and accordingly, the said complaint of the complainant was fully attended by the engineer of the OP and then, second time the complainant made a complaint on 26.12.2013, but that was after warranty period, but despite that, by complying the order of District Forum, the LED TV was repaired free of cost and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed by order.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Rahul Nagpal as Ex.OPW-1A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. Precisely, the case of the complainant in regard to purchase of LED TV on 10.11.2012 for Rs.43,000/- from OP No.4 and some defect was occurred therein and thereafter, on the direction of the District Consumer Forum, the said LED was repaired free of cost. The above facts are not in dispute. The question arises whether after the passing of the order of District Forum dated 12.09.2014, there was any complaint made by the complainant to the OP, in regard to occurring any defect in the LED TV, in answer to above query, we have to glance the pleading of the complaint and wherein the complainant in Para No.7, in the middle alleged that after repairing the LED TV upon the order of the District Forum, a defect was again occurred within 6 months and then the engineer of the OP visited the house of the complainant in the month of July, 2015, but he failed to rectify the defect and stated to the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the panel of the LED and the same cannot be rectified. Now the problem started to the complainant after 12.09.2014, qua the instant complaint, but in order to establish that the complainant approached to the service centre or lodge any complaint, if lodged then probably its number must be accorded to the complainant by the said service centre, but the said number has not been mentioned by the complainant in the complaint, where-from a doubt created upon the story propounded by the complainant which seems to be false and make just to get replace the LED TV.
8. For reference sake, on the previous occasion when the complainant made a complaint to the OPs, who apparently issued a complaint number, which is clearly mentioned in Para No.3 of the complaint, but after the decision of the District Forum dated 12.09.2014, no complaint has been lodged by the complainant, if lodged, the same is not proved on the file, if so, then the allegations of the complainant in regard to occurring any defect in the LED TV, does not established. Apart from that if virtually there is any defect in the LED TV and the OPs are not co-operating with the complainant in regard to rectify the defect in question, then the complainant has alternative remedy to get it check from any private engineer and to get its certificate to place on the file, just to prove there is a manufacturing defect, but no such type of report has been produced on the file. So, from all the angles, it is clearly established that the complainant himself failed to prove any negligence, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, if so, then the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed or compensation as well as litigation expenses.
9. However, in the interest of justice, if the complainant has filed the instant complaint, though the defect occurred in the LED TV in the month of July, 2015, admittedly after the warranty period of one year, if so, then the complainant is entitled to get repair the LED TV from the OP, but on charges basis and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant qua get it repair is partly accepted qua the remaining claim, the complaint is dismissed.
10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the OPs are directed to repair the LED TV of the complainant on the basis of charges. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
27.03.2019 Member President
