OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI-03
C.C.61/2014
Present:-
1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. -President
2) Smti ArchanaDekaLahkar - Member
3) Md Jamatul Islam - Member
Shri Debasish Saha -Complainant
S/O- Lt Umesh Ch Saha
R/O- Kalapahar,Pahartoli,Lane No-2,
Guwahati-781018
Dist-Kamrup (M),Assam
-VS-
1) Panasonic India Pvt Ltd. -Opp.party
6th Floor, Spic Building Annexe
No-88,Mount Road,Guindy
Chennai-32,India
2) Panasonic India Pvt Ltd.
System Sale Division
101,Royal Arcade,Dr B.Baruah Road
Ulubari,Guwahati-07,Assam
3) J.M.Electronics
14,Mahavir Bhawan,A.T.Road
Guwahati -781001,Kamrup,Assam
Appearance:
Ld advocates Mr Mahesh Agarwala and Mr Nazrul Islam Khan for the complainant & Ld advocate Mr Pankaj Kr Das for the opp. parties .
Date of argument - 21/08/2018
Date of judgment - 23/10/2018
JUDGMENT
This is a proceeding U/S- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1 The complaint filed by Shri Debasish Saha against Panasonic India Pvt Ltd.,Chennai; Panasonic India Pvt Ltd., Guwahati branch (System Sale Division ) and J.M.Electronics ,Guwahati was admitted on 01/07/2014 and notices were served on all the opp. parties and Opp.Party No-1 & 2 filed a joint written statement , but the case against Opp.Party No-3 is proceeding on exparte vide our order dtd. 07/04/2015. The complainant filed his evidence in affidavit on 01/04/2016 ; and he was cross examined by Opp.Party No-1 & 2 side and Opp.Party No-1 & 2 side’s Ld advocate Ms Sikha Sarma vide Petition No-535/18 informed this forum that Opp.Party No-1 & 2 side would not adduce any evidence and parallely prays for fixing the case for argument and allowing that petition , this forum , vide order dtd. 04/05/2018 , fixed the day of 11/06/2018 for filing written argument by the opp. parties and on 20/07/2018, Ld advocate Mr Nazrul Islam Khan filed written argument for the complainant , but Opp.Party No-1 & 2 did not file written argument ; finally on 21/08/2018, we heard oral argument of Ld advocate Mr Nazrul Islam Khan for the complainant and today we deliver the judgment which is as below-
2. The gist of the pleading of the complainant is that he had purchased one projector bearing Model No-PT-LX30HEA , Sl No-DB3320160 manufactured by Opp.Party No-1 from Opp.Party No-3 on 04/07/2013 at a price of Rs. 55,000/- vide Retail Invoice No-044 dtd. 04/07/2013 which carrying warranty for 24 months from the date of purchase but from October, 2013 it started giving disturbance and it was sent to the service centre of Opp.Party No-1 at Guwahati on 14/11/2013 vide Job Card No-14645 and it is identified with defect in its motherboard which the said service centre was not able to repair the same; and the opp. parties were informed about the matter vide e-mail dtd. 10/12/2013 which they acknowledged vide e-mails dtd.12/12/2013 and 13/12/2013; and through one representation, the opp. parties vide e-mail dtd. 23/12/2013, informed him that the mother-board was not easily available but any-how , they would arrange it, and they would deliver the same to him within a week; and he was offered a projector as replacement temporarily which was three times heavier than his projector , but he did not accept the said offer as that was three times heavier than his projector but asked them to replace his projector with a new one or to return the price amount to him. After expiery of a month from 03/01/2014, he received no compensation from the opp. parties and he vide his e-mail dtd. 03/02/2014, he reiterated his claim and stand . For want of the projector , he suffered from immense hardship in his work place .
3. By filing written statement, Opp.Party No-1 & 2 , states that the complaint has no merit , it is false , frivolous and baseless . The complainant is not entitled to any relief from this forum. There is no defect in the projector but the main board of it had developed the fault as the projector was inproperly handled by the complainant . The main board is not being readily available ; they had to send it to its service centre at Kolkata . They offered a projector to the complainant as replacement of the projector on temporary basis but the complainant has not accepted the offer . Now , the projector is lying in fully functional condition at their service centre . They informed the complainant that the projector is repaired or it will be replaced, which they informed the complainant through e-mail dtd.12/12/2013, but the complainant wrongly interpreted the said email , they had ordered the main board from their Japan office for replacement in the said projector . The projector shall be repaired by changing the motherboard and therefore question of replacement of projector or refund of purchase price doesnot arise. They informed the complainant that motherboard of the said projector was required to be imported from Japan and accordingly said projector will be made ready to be handed over to the complainant . They replied the legal notice vide their letter dtd. 18/03/2014 wherein they state that the projector was lying in fully functional condition at their service centre . The projector was purchased for personal work of the complainant and as such no question of suffering huge financial loss would arise . They offered warranty extension for the duration the projector was not working and under repairing, but the complainant refused to accept the projector , and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this forum.
4.After perusing the evidence of the complainant as well as the pleading of both the parties it appears to us that the opp. party side admit that the complainant had purchased one projector bearing Model No-PTLX30HEA & Serial No-DB3320160 manufactured by Opp.Party No-1 from Opp.Party No-3on 04/07/2013 at a price of Rs. 55,000/- .
5.It is also both sides’ admitted fact that after two months of purchasing the projectorit started to give disturbance and the complainant then got it checked up through Opp.Party No-3 but thesaid projector failed to functionand the projector was submitted to the service centreof opp. party on 14/11/2013 vide Job Card No-14645 which has beenidentified with defect inits motherboardand that wasconfirmed by the opp. party ; and their service centre sentthe projector to theirKolkata service centreand the opp. party informed the complainantthat they wrote to their Japan office to send the motherboard and the opp. parties offered a replacement for temporary use but the complainant refused to take that replacement finding it three times heavierthan his projector . Thus , it is crystal clear that after two months of purchasing the said projector, it had started malfunctioning and then the complainant deposited the said projector to Opp.Party No-3 for repairing informing Opp.Party No-1& 2about the defect; and opp. party side sent the projector to their Kolkataservice centre for repairing admitting that the motherboard is defective and they6 also wrote to their Japan office for sending the motherboard. It is found that the opp. parties did not send any noticeto the complainant that the projector was repaired and is readyfor delivery . The opp. party side in theirwritten statement states that the projector is ready for delivery but the complainant refused to take thedelivery . The opp. party sideadduces no evidence to prove their assertionthat the said projectorwas repaired and is ready for delivery . They have also not produced the said projector before this forum for checking by theforum about its functionality . Thus , it is held to have been established that the opp. party side has not repaired the said projector and they have failed to repair the said projector as because the motherboard has manufacturing defect and as they failed to collect the motherboard from their Japan office . So we hold that the said projector has manufacturing defect in its motherboardwhich is not at all repairable and that makesthe projector functionlessand hence the opp. parties are liableto return the price of the projector which is Rs.55,000/- along withinterest @12% per annum fromthe date of October ,2013.
6. As the opp. parties failed to repair the said projector it caused financial loss to the complainant as he is a professional man holding the post of Retail Head ,Sales in M/S Dyna Roof ,Guwahati . So , the opp. parties are also liable to pay him Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing financial loss to him. Morever , they are liable to pay him another amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding , as he had to incur expenditure of a handsome amount in prosecuting them before this forum.
7. Summing up our discussion as above , we hold that the complainant has a strong prima facie case against the opp. parties and he has also succeeded to prove the same . Accordingly , the case against Opp.Party No-1 & 2 is allowed on contest and against Opp.Party No-3 on exparte , and they are directed to refund the purchase price of the projector (Rs.55,000) to the complainant with interest @12% per annum from 14/11/2013 and also to pay him compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing financial loss to him as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding , to which, all the opp. parties are jointly and severally liable . They are directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days , in default, other two amounts shall also carry interest at the same rate.
Given under our hands and seals today on this 23rd October, 2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain)
Member Member President
