IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KEONJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 29 OF 2017
Braja Sundra Kar, aged about 45 years,
S/o-Prafulla Ch. Kar, At-Jamuhata,
New colony,Keonjhar P.O-Kenjhargarh
P.S-Town,
Dist-Keonjhar, 758002……………………………………………………………………….………………………….Complainant
vrs
1.Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd.
Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda
2. Voice & Shadow
At- Madhapur Square, N.H.6, Keonjhar
P.o-Keonjhargarh,P.S-Town, Dist-Keonjhar
3. Panasonic India Pvt Ltd,
6th floor SPIC House Annexe No-88
Annasalai, Chennei-600032………….………………………..……………………………………………Opp .Parties
Present:
Shri Purusottam Samantara,President.
Smt. B.Giri Member(W).
Sri Bharat Bhusan Das (M).
Advocate for complainant- Chinmaya Das.
Advocate for O.P1 & O.P-3 – None.
Advocate for O.P-2- P. Sahu.
Date of filing - 26.07.2017 Date of Order- 03.01.2018
1. Sri Purusottam Samantara- Succinctly put, the complainant purchased one PANASONIC Plasma TV, Model NO-THP-42UT30D for a consideration of Rs 79,000/-against Invoice No-7379 on dt 27.02.2017, with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase.
2. The complainant also averred from the date of purchase 27.02.2017 & post installation the TV became non-functional in surface of defect. The matter is intimated to the dealer and with advise phone the customer care as the TV is within warranty period, but the O.Ps are in callous and failed to either rectify or replace with a new one. Which is misleading to the consumer and cheating not ensuring the defect within the warranty period. Such in action on the part of the O.P is deficiency of service not abiding the warranty period.
3. Praying order may be passed in refund of the entire cost of the plasma TV along with compensation and cost. Relied on original warranty card, Money receipt and affidavit.
4. Pursuant to notice, O.P-1 and O.P-3 preferred not to appear nor made any version and the O.P-2 appeared and filed the version in admission that “voice & shadow” sold the Panasonic plasma TV on dt 27.02.2017 in receiving the consideration amount and further in admission that the complainant made complain on dt 03.03.2017 so also intimated to the customer care, in selling the product no negligence arises and the warranty be looked after by the O.P-1.
5. Prayed O.P-2 is no way liable to the complainant to pay any compensation or shoulder any liability.
6. Heard both the counsels at length and perused the record with relevant material in the document.
7. Perusal record revels, no dispute persists on the purchase plasma Panasonic TV set, model, date of purchase, consideration and warranty thereof.
8. None appeared from the opposite O.P-1 and O.P-3.
9. As we have gone through pleadings of O.P2, the version content admits the substantative submission that in selling of goods, the trader is no more to shoulder any responsibility, which flows from ignorance and manner irresponsiveness on the part of O.P-2.
10. Again the conditions expressed in the invoice in print, against the notification of Department of consumer affairs, Delhi issued in public interest under-D.0 No-11(ii) 99-CPU-1647,dt 22.12.1999 and same circular content view is held in the case-Tnt India Pvt Ltd vs Ramesha Sawalkar-iv(2005) cpj 207 NCthat “goods once sold will not be taken back can’t be printed on such receipt.
11. Further it is not in evidence that the dealer has intimated or communicated the defect to the manufacture on the issue of defect rectification, in addition it is the duty of the dealer to replace for a competent new one or make refund as the TV purchased dt 02.03.2017 within 4 days of purchase.
12. Again it is ample evidential, the dealer willfully sold a defect product or mis represented the fact that same product is up to date and not a spurious one. The warranty on the TV is to be discharged at dealer end as it is settled principle, there is no inter-face between manufacturer and the ultimate consumer of the product so the dealer is bound by the every terms of the contract, non obligation, non-execution and non-rendering appropriate service is a gross negligence and unfair trade practice to the core, which amply admitted and cannot be absolved in any manner. Our same view is observed in the noted case- Krishna Kumar Sahoo vs Manager, Jaishri Electronics-Held-“it is the duty of the manufacturer/dealer to repair defects in product during warranty period within a reasonable time”-2010(I) CPR 149 (Chhattisgarh).
13. So on the above made discussion, it is made conclusive that O.Ps contribute negligence & short coming in non adhering the rules that they framed in “under warranty”, it is reveals the O.Ps do not care the laws of the land, ignoring notice and opportunities. O.Ps are liable for deficiency of service in jointly & severally contributing negligence faults and intentional denial, within the provision of the term service, for we ordered.
O-R-D-E-R
The O.Ps are jointly & severally liable to pay the petitioner in refund of the amount received as consideration under invoice No-7379 along with six percent of interest accrued on same from the date of purchase till complete realization within 30 days of this order. In alternate, provide a one brand new TV of equal value in exchange of the sold one, to the satisfaction of the petitioner, within the above time frame, failing Rs 50/- per day will levied from the date of purchase till complete realization.
(i)The O.P-2 is to delete the printed condition “Goods once sold can’t be taken back” in the next all issued invoice/or money receipts.
(ii)The O.P-1 and O.P-3 each to pay Rs 500/- (five hundred only) to the petitioner for non- adhering the call of the forum. Failing same will attract Rs 10/- per day penalty till complete realization.
(iii)No Order as to compensation and cost.
Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced, 3rd Jan 2018
I agree I agree
Sri B. B. Das Smt B.Giri Sri Purusottam Samantara
Member (m) Member (w) President
DCDRF,Keonjhar DCDRF,Keonjhar DCDRF,Konjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
(Shri Purushottam Samantara)
(President)
DCDRF, Keonjhar
