DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 38 of 2.2.2016
Decided on: 14.9.2016
Suman Lata Bahri, resident of H.No.3936/2, Dal Dalia Chowk, Patiala (M) 98780-42217.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd.,12th Floor, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 through its Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Anand Electronics, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala through its Authorized Signatory.
3. Panasonic Service Centre , Kothi No. 153, Ajit Nagar, Patiala through its Authorized Signatory.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.K.S.Rajpal, Advocate, counsel for the
complainant.
Sh.J.P.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for opposite
parties No.1&3.
Opposite Party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt. Suman Lata has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To replace/ remove the defect in the LED or refund the amount of Rs.85000/-
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation/ damages for in convenience, mental agony, harassment caused to him
- To pay Rs.11000/- towards costs of the complaint
- To pay any other relief which this Forum may deem fit
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that the OP No.2 being in the business of selling electronic goods such as coloured televisions, washing machines , fridge, LCD, LED etc. of Panasonic Company, she purchased LED 46’RD No.THL42ET50/2TAJ02841 on 11.12.20012 , vide bill No.2432 for an amount of Rs.85000/-, from it, with a warranty of 1+2 years. The LED, from the day of its purchase is not functioning/working properly. She made so many complaints to the O.Ps and also sent a registered letter dated 7.11.2015 but of no use. Then the matter was taken with OP No.3. A service request for repair/replacement of LED was lodged vide No.R-141015542256 22.10.2015. She also lodged another complaint vide No. R-221015585128, in response to which one Mr. Parveen Kamboj, Service Engineer visited her house and after checking the LED , asked her to bring the same at the service centre situated at Ajit Nagar, Patiala i.e. OP No.3. The LED was handed over to the service centre within the warranty period as per the bill issued on 11.12.2012 but to her utter surprise, it was informed to her by Op No.3 that the LED was out of warranty/guarantee as the company provides warranty/guarantee only for one year and if two years guarantee/ warranty is given by opposite party no.2, then, only it is responsible for any repair/replacement. As per the job card there was linning and scratches in the panel of the LED and an amount of Rs.50,000/- approximately was demanded from her by OP No.3 for the replacement/rectifying the defective parts of the LED. Thus, the OP no.2 with malafide intention sold the defective product to her with warranty of 1+2 years and played fraud with her. She being a poor lady is unable to spend Rs,50,000/- for the repair of the LED. She also got served a legal notice dated 8.1.2016 upon the Ops through her counsel Sh.Kulvinder Singh Rajpal, Advocate, the reply dated 19.1.2016 to the legal notice was sent by Op no.1 having tried to mislead her. The Ops can not deny her lawful right and are legally bound to replace/remove the defects in the LED. The unlawful act of the Ops caused her mental agony and torture. Thus there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, Ops No.1&3 appeared through their counsel and filed the written version while Op No.2 was failed to come present and to contest the case despite service and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.In the written version filed by Ops. No.1&3 through their counsel, preliminary objections have been taken that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; that the complaint is without any technical report; that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts; that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is bad for joinder and non joinder of the opposite parties. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has no cause of action against the answering Op as the company provides one year comprehensive warranty from the date of purchase of unit subject to some conditions. The warranty of the unit becomes void for the following conditions:
- Liquid Logged/Moisture.
- Physically Damage
- Serial No.Missing
- Tampering
- Mishandling etc
The complainant purchased the LED on 11.12.2012 and approached the company for the first time regarding any issue in the unit on 22.10.2015 i.e. approximate after three years of the purchase of the LED. The engineer of the company checked the unit and told the complainant that the board of alleged unit has to be replaced on chargeable basis as the same is out of warranty of one year but the complainant did not agree to pay any charges of repair and became adamant to get the unit of LED repaired free of cost and also started demanding the replacement of the unit of LED with a new one, which is not possible as the warranty period has elapsed . It is further stated that the company was and is always ready to repair the unit of LED as per conditions of warranty but the complainant is not ready. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. In support of the complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, the sworn affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C1 copy of retail invoice dated 11.12.2012, Ex.C2 copy of complaint dated 7.11.2015, Ex.C3 copy of job card, Ex.C4 copy of complaint to SSP,Ex.C5 copy of legal notice dated 8.1.2016, Ex.C6 copy of reply to the legal notice, and closed the evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the Ops, No.1&3 on the contrary tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Singh, Ex.OP1, copy of certificate of warranty, Ex.OP2 copy of reply to the legal notice, and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops No.1&3.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and the record of the case, carefully.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that at the time of purchase of the LED in question, a warranty of 1+2 years was given by the OP no.2 as is evident from the copy of retail invoice Ex.C1 dated 11.12.2012. The LED was not functioning properly from the very beginning of its purchase, she made several complaints to the Ops, but they did nothing and ultimately on 7.11.2014 a registered letter was sent to the Ops . Even then the Ops failed to do the needful. However, on lodging a complaint dated 22.10.2015, the service engineer, visited her house and after checking the LED told her to bring the said LED to the service centre. Accordingly, she took the LED, which was well within warranty, to the service centre, i.e. OP no.2 but its engineer refused to repair the same free of cost with a plea that the warranty of the LED has already expired .
8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Ops no.1&3 submitted that the company provides one year comprehensive warranty from the date of the purchase of the product, subject to some conditions, as is evident from the copy of certificate of warranty, Ex.OP1.The complainant approached the company, for the repair of her LED, after the expiry of the warranty period, therefore, its engineer told her to pay the required charges for its repair but she refused to pay the same. Therefore, the answering Ops No.1&3 can not be said to be deficient in providing services. He further submitted that the complainant purchased the said LED in question on 11.12.2012, and she approached the company with some problem in it on 22.12.2015 i.e. after approximately a period of three years. Thus it can not be said that there is any manufacturing defect in the said LED. Even otherwise, the complainant has not placed on record any technical report of expert to prove this fact that the LED in question is having any manufacturing defect. As such, the complaint filed against Ops no.1&3 is liable to be dismissed.
9. As per the version of the complainant, 1+2 years warranty was given by OP NO.2 at the time of purchase of the LED in question. In support of this version, she has placed on record, copy of the invoice dated 11.12.2012, Ex.C1.Due to non appearance, the OP no.2 was proceeded against exparte and this version of the complainant has gone rebutted.
10. In the copy of invoice, Ex.C1, 1+2 years warranty has been mentioned, which also bears the stamp of Anand Electronics i.e. OP No.2.
11. From the perusal of certificate of warranty, Ex.OP 1, it is apparent that the company provides one year comprehensive warranty for the product, from the date of its purchase. Taking this fact into consideration, we do not hesitate to conclude that extended warranty i.e. 1+2 years has been given by the seller i.e. OP No.2 on its own level and not by the company. Since the extended warranty has been given by OP no.2, therefore, no liability can be fastened against Ops no.1&3 and the complaint filed against them is liable to be dismissed. However, it is responsibility of OP no.2 to get the defect(s) in the LED of the complainant removed free of cost. The said OP no.2 is also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her alongwith litigation expenses.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed against Ops no.1&3 is dismissed and is allowed against OP no.2. OP no.2 is directed in the following manner:
- To get the defect(s) in the LED in question removed free of cost
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses
The OP no.2 is further directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The certified copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
Dated:14.9.2016
