Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1055/2016

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jaipal Singh

25 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1055/2016
Date of Institution	:	07/12/2016
Date of Decision	:	25/01/2018

 

Manoj Kumar, resident of House No.659, Vikas Nagar, Street No.8-A, Naya Gaon, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. having registered office No.88, 6^th Floor Consumer Sales Div. Spic Building Annexe, Mount Road, Guinday, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600032 through its Director.

2.     Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Head Office 12^th Floor, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002, through its Director.

3.     New Tec Electronics, SCO 495-496, Sector 35-C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Director/Authorised representative.

4.     Ashok Enterprises Shop No.4-5, Naya Gaon, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, through its Prop. Authorised representative.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Jaipal Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for OPs

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Panasonic LED 40” from OP-4 vide invoice dated 23.10.2015 for Rs.38,000/-.  However, soon after purchase, the said LED started giving problems as a big line came in front of the screen. The complainant approached OP-4 who advised him to approach OP-3. Accordingly, the complainant approached OP-3 in June 2016 and it replaced the panel of the said LED.  After 10 days, the LED again started giving same problem and the sound of the LED was also getting mute.  The complainant again approached OP-3 and its representatives told that the main board of the LED was to be replaced. Thereafter the LED again started giving problem of display and would shut down automatically.  The complainant contacted the customer care of the OPs but without giving any services, the request of the complainant was cancelled.  As per the complainant, the LED is having a manufacturing defect and is not worthy of repair. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written statement have not disputed the factual matrix. It has been averred that on the complaint of the complainant, engineer of the OPs visited on 7.11.2016 but no problem was found. However, still for the satisfaction of the complainant main board was replaced and the LED was working absolutely fine.  It has been stated that thereafter the complainant again lodged a complaint and the engineer of the OPs visited the house of the complainant 3-4 times, but, he refused to repair the LED and demanded for replacement. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Replication was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         It is evident from Annexure C-1, coupled with the affidavit of the complainant, that he purchased one Panasonic LED 40” from OP-4, manufactured by OPs 1 & 2, on 25.10.2015 for Rs.38,000/-. Annexure C-5 is the warranty card which shows that the product in question was with regular one year warranty alongwith additional extended warranty of two years.  Annexure C-2 is the job sheet dated 20.6.2016 according to which the panel of the LED in question was replaced. Again as per job sheet dated 7.11.2016 (Annexure C-3), the mainboard of the LED was replaced, that too within the warranty period.
7.         The sole grouse of the complainant is that till date, the fault reported could not be rectified by the OPs and hence, they are deficient in selling a sub-standard product to him. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
8.         The stand taken by the OPs is that only for the satisfaction of the complainant, the main board was replaced otherwise there was no problem found in the LED in question. Thereafter, the complainant when lodged a complaint, he himself chose not to allow the engineers of the OPs for the repairs and demanded replacement.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
9.         After going through the job sheets Annexure C-2 and C-3, it is clear, as well as admitted fact, that the panel was replaced on 20.6.2016 and on the next date of repair i.e. 7.11.2016 vide Annexure C-3 the main board of the LED in question was also replaced.  Annexure C-4 are the various text messages of the OPs to the complainant showing their inability to repair as the part is pending with them and later on as per page 12 on 29^th September, the OPs themselves cancelled the request of service of the complainant due to the reason of non-availability of the customer. We feel that as the product in question was having warranty of three years, the replacement of the main board and the LED Panel within the regular warranty period of one year is itself a major repair. The complainant invested a hefty amount of Rs.38,000/- trusting the brand and there should be no such occasion for replacement of the main board or the LED panel in a branded product when the same has been used not even for one complete year.  Later on, when the fault was reported, the same could not be rectified, as is clear from the text messages.  Hence, the act of the OPs in selling a substandard product to the complainant and thereafter non-rectifying the fault reported proves deficiency in service which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to him. It is the negligence of the OPs only which forced the complainant to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the LED in question i.e. Rs.38,000/- to the complainant. Complainant shall, however, return the defective LED to the OPs.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/01/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member